Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113900
CRM-M No.40319 of 2023(O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:113900
274
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.40319 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.08.2023
Jagjit Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY.
Present:- Mr. Abdul Aziz, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anmol Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab
.....
SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL)
The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to
the petitioener in the following case (Annexure P-1) :-
FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station
123 10.10.2021 326-A, 149, of IPC Sadar Raikot, District
(201 IPC added Ludhiana
lateron)
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that FIR was lodged on
the statement of Charan Singh, stating that on 10.10.2021 at about 04.45
AM, he was going to Gurudwara Sahib Logal Patti, Noorpura from his
house, when he reached near cycle repair shop of Kamal on main GT Road
Ludhiana- Raikot, then Jagjit Singh @ Pappu and Bhola were already
present there. It is alleged that Jagjit Singh @ Pappu told Bhola to give a
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113900
CRM-M No.40319 of 2023(O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:113900
spray on complainant's face. Although the complainant tried to flee away on
his bicycle but Bhola poured acid on his back. When complainant reached
near the sweet shop, he found Pritam Singh standing there, who called Kali
Singh while another two unknown persons with muffled faces were already
standing there and Pritam Singh exhorted them by saying that the
complainant be not spared. It is alleged that the said persons were also
carrying spray bottles and Pritam Singh told them to spray on complainant's
face. However, the complainant managed to escape on his bicycle. Later
when his son took out complainant's shirt, it was noticed that the
complainant's back had sustained burn injuries and even his leg above knee
had been burnt on the basis of which the present FIR (Annexure P-1) was
registered.
3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case
due to a dispute between two families pertaining to a transaction for
purchase of a tractor and on account of which the entire family of the
petitioner has been involved. It has been submitted that the petitioner is aged
50 years and is not attributed any overt act in the alleged occurrence except
for mere alleged exhortation. He further submits that petitioner was arrested
on 14.10.2021 and after investigation he was sent to jail. Challan has already
been presented in Court on 14.03.2022. He submitted that despite framing of
charge on 06.05.2022, no prosecution witness has been examined till date.
He refers to the medico legal report dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-2) which
clearly shows that the injuries on the person of the injured are simple in
nature. He further submits that co-accused namely Pritam Singh has been
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113900
CRM-M No.40319 of 2023(O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:113900
granted concession of bail vide order dated 23.12.2021 passed by this Court
in CRM-M-53245 of 2021 titled as Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab. He
submits that petitioner is behind bars for last 1 year 10 months and 12 days
and refers to the judgment cited as Makhan Ram Vs. State of Punjab, Law
Finder doc Id#1621984. As such prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has contested the bail
application by vehemently arguing that the allegations stand substantiated
from medical evidence inasmuch as burn injures were found on the person
of the complainant, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State
counsel has filed custody certificate dated 22.08.2023, which is taken on
record and informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last
about 1 year 10 months and 12 days. He also admitted that no witness has
been examined by prosecution till date in the trial.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record,
it transpires that as per the version given by the complainant, while he was
going to Gurudwara on his cycle on 10.10.2021, the present petitioner Jagjit
Singh @ Pappu along with his son Bhola Singh were standing and the
petitioner exhorted his son to through acid and while the complainant tried
to speed up his cycle, Bhola Singh gave acid spray on his back. As per the
complainant, after some distance, Pritam Singh father of petitioner was
standing and he also asked Kali son of Jagjit Singh and two other persons to
spray on complainant but complainant escaped. Admittedly as per the
medico legal report dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-2) clearly shows that the
injuries on the person of complainant were simple in nature. After
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113900
CRM-M No.40319 of 2023(O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:113900
completion of investigation, the challan has been presented in Court. The
petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.10.2021. After framing of charge on
06.05.2022, no prosecution witness has been examined during trial till date.
The petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2021 and considering the fact that
till date no prosecution witness has been examined, from which it can be
gathered that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, it is
observed that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner, in
custody any longer. Even otherwise no specific overt act has been attributed
to the petitioner except for mere exhortation. The injury as aforesaid on the
person of complainant is simple in nature and on non vital part of the body.
The co-accused Pritam Singh has already been granted concession of bail in
CRM-M-53245 of 2021 titled as Pritam Singh vs. State of Punjab.
7. Consequently, in the light of the above, without commenting
on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court concerned; undertaking to
regularly appear on each and every date; not to leave the country without
prior permission of the Court; and not to tamper with evidence of
prosecution in any manner.
8. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion
of this Court on the merits of the case.
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
31.08.2023
Gyan
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113900
4 of 4
