Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrinder Singh @ Bobby @ Mangal vs State Of Punjab on 17 February, 2021
CRM-M-6532-2021 -1-
207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-6532-2021
Date of Decision: 17.02.2021
****
Amrinder Singh @ Bobby @ Mangal
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Sewak, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition for regular bail filed on behalf of the
petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No.47 dated 22.07.2020,
under Sections 307, 341 & 34 of the IPC and Sections 25, 27 & 30-A of the
Arms Act, 1959 (Section 30-A of the Arms Act added later on), registered at
Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot.
[2]. Background of the matter is that the FIR was drawn up on the
complaint of the Complainant-Gurminder Singh, who had alleged that
"....On 21.07.2020, he and his son Samunderdeep Singh alias Laddu were
coming to their village on motor-cycle, after collecting dry straw from the
field. Motorcycle was being driven by his son Samunderdeep Singh alias
Laddo and he was pillion rider. Then, at about 7.30 P.M, when they
reached near the bridge of minor canal of Sher Singh Wala, Amrinder
Singh alias Bobby alias Mangal son of Uddam Singh, resident of Sher
Singh Wala and one unknown person with muffled face were standing with
1 of 5
splendor Motorcycle and Arminder Singh alias Bobby was having pistol in
his hand, who stopped their Motor-cycle and asked his son Samunderdeep
Singh alias Laddu that they teach a lesson for quarreling with him. In the
meantime, Amrinder Singh alias Bobby alias Mangal shot a fire with pistol,
which hit on the chest of his son and his son fell down on the ground and he
also fell down on the ground. He raised raula 'Marta Marta'. Then,
Amrinder Singh alias Bobby alias Mangal and unidentified person along
with weapon fled away from the spot on the motor-cycle. Then, he and his
son Vikasdeep Singh after arranging a vehicle got admitted his son
Samunderdeep Singh in G.G.S. Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot,
where he is undergoing treatment. The motive behind the occurrence is that
earlier to this incident, a quarrel took place between Samunderdeep Singh
and Amrinder Singh alias Bobby, but matter was compromised, so due to
that grudge, accused fired a shot with pistol upon his son with an intention
to kill him.....".
[3]. Contention of the petitioner is that his client has been falsely
implicated in the case. It has also been submitted that after completion of
investigation, Challan against him has already been submitted, on account
of which, his further detention in the interest of investigation is certainly not
required. In addition, Ld. Counsel has also made the following submissions
before this Court during the course of hearing:-
(i). That the Challan already submitted is incomplete as it was
not accompanied by the X-ray Reports, Ballistic Reports
and other Forensic Evidence to be relied upon by the
Investigating Agency, on account of which, the petitioner
has become entitled for being released on default bail in
2 of 5
view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in
CRR-4659-2015 titled as "Ajit Singh alias Jeeta and
another Vs. State of Punjab", decided on 30.11.2018,
which was followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in CRM-M-13929-2020 titled as "Subhash Vs. State of
Haryana" decided on 17.06.2020;
(ii). That the evidence allegedly collected during investigation
is not reliable, since recovery of the alleged
arms/ammunition used in the offence was shown to have
been effected on 01.08.2020, but the same were sent for
Forensic Examination after a long delay of nearly 8 weeks
on 24.09.2020;
(iii). That it has been sought to be made out by the prosecution
that the complainant's son was shot at from a point blank
range by the petitioner. However, the nature of the injuries
as noted in his MLR (Annexure P-2) are not consistent
with such type of shooting;
(iv). That the time in taking the victim to the Hospital from the
place of occurrence is unexplained in the FIR; and
(v). That there is a material inconsistency in the MLR
(Annexure P-2) of the victim, in which, it was noted by the
concerned Medical Officer that the patient was conscious
and oriented to time, place and person, whereas the same
victim in his statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
had stated that he regained consciousness after several
days.
3 of 5
[4]. After hearing Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not in
agreement with his aforesaid submissions.
[5]. In Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2015 titled as "Narender Kumar
Amin Vs. CBI and another", decided on 15.01.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had laid down that there is no specific prohibition that additional
documents cannot be produced subsequently after presentation of Charge-
Sheet by the Investigating Authorities. In other words merely because
certain documents such as those by way of Forensic Reports have not been
annexed along with the Final Report, it cannot be taken to mean that such
Report in itself is incomplete, or have the effect of enabling an accused to
seek statutory/default bail. It needs to be further remembered that decision
of the Division Bench in Ajit Singh @ Jeeta and another's case (supra)
and was specifically passed in context of the offences under the N.D.P.S.
Act, 1985, for which, the procedure and rigors provided are far more
stringent than those relating to general offences. Further, the said decision
was passed without considering the ratio in Narinder Kumar Amin's case
(supra), which would prima facie have the effect of rendering the same per
incuriam. In addition, reliance upon the same by a Co-ordinate Bench for
granting bail to an accused for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B & 201 of the IPC, would not be an appropriate comparison
considering that those offences essentially pertain to monetary/financial
transactions, while the present case pertains to Section 307 of the IPC which
is a human life threatening offence.
[6]. It is settled law that minor omissions or contradictions in the
statements of witnesses in criminal proceedings do not have the effect of
rendering the prosecution case as a whole to be baseless. At any rate, the
4 of 5
submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding the delay in sending
the case property for Forensic Examination, or removing the victim from the
place of occurrence to the Hospital are essentially to be scrutinized only at
the Trial stage, as also the apparent discrepancy regarding the condition of
the victim when he was first examined by the Medical Officer concerned.
[7]. No doubt, Challan has been submitted in the case, but
considering the fact that the victim was shot at by fire-arms which caused
him a chest injury, this Court is of the opinion that releasing the petitioner at
this stage would not be conducive to ensure that the complainant and his
son/victim are able to give their statements in the Trial Court, without any
fear or pressure.
[8]. It has been submitted by Ld. State Counsel that Charges in the
case are to be framed by the Ld. Trial Court within a day or so.
[9]. As such, in the totality of the circumstances, this Court is not
inclined to release the petitioner right-away. It would be appropriate to
entertain such prayer on his behalf only after the complainant and the victim
give their statements as prosecution witnesses in the Ld. Trial Court. If,
however, there appears to be any unnecessary or avoidable delay not
attributable to the petitioner in recording such statements, it is always open
to him to approach the Court again for appropriate relief.
[10]. Dismissed at this stage.
17.02.2021 (SUDIP AHLUWALIA)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
