Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdarshan Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 6 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084833
CRM-M-32038-2023 (O&M) [1] 2023:PHHC:084833
105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-32038-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.07.2023
Sukhdarshan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. P.S. Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1.
Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is the third petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.298 dated 26.06.2022
registered under Sections 114, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 506 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station
Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa.
2. The petitioner along with one Kuldeep Singh had applied for
anticipatory bail by way of filing a petition bearing No.CRM-M-30563-2022
and this Court, vide order dated 22.07.2022, had dismissed the said
anticipatory bail. Relevant portion of the said order dismissing the
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and co-accused Kuldeep Singh is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
"This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084833
CRM-M-32038-2023 (O&M) [2] 2023:PHHC:084833
and has perused the paper book.
FIR in the present case had been registered on the
statement of Gursewak Singh son of Makhan Singh who had
stated that on 25.06.2022 in the night at 10/10.15 pm, he was
going on a motorcycle with his father Makhan Singh for
watering the land of Avtar Singh and when he reached near the
bridge on the road, there the present petitioners alongwith
Iqbal Singh, Amritpal Singh, Jaswant Singh and 2/3 unknown
persons came with weapons and stopped his motorcycle by
blocking the way and Iqbal Singh raised lalkara and thereafter,
one unknown boy caught hold of the complainant and Iqbal
Singh fired on the complainant with his pistol in order to kill
him and the complainant raised his right hand in order to save
himself and the shot hit on his hand and some pellets fired also
hit him in his stomach and thereafter, Amrit Singh co-accused
attacked the complainant with a sword on his right hand and
then both the petitioners started beating Makhan Singh, who is
father of the complainant and is a 70 year old person, with
dandas/sticks in their hand and due to the injuries given by the
said petitioners to his father, the complainant and father of the
complainant i.e. Makhan Singh raised alarm and on hearing
the same, Avtar Singh and Jagsir Singh came to the spot in
order to save them but Jaswant Singh, who was also having
pistol in his hand, fired a direct shot at the hand of Jagsir Singh
and thereafter, the complainant party raised alarm and the said
persons fled from the spot with their weapons and the
motorcycle.
A perusal of the FIR would show that the
petitioners, alongwith the other accused persons, had carried
out an attack on the complainant party and in the process had
injured three persons. The members of the petitioners' party
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084833
CRM-M-32038-2023 (O&M) [3] 2023:PHHC:084833
were also carrying pistols in their hands and had fired at the
complainant party. Gursewak Singh received the following
injuries:-
Sr. Injuries Marked Injury
No. Number
Lacerated wound of size measuring 1 cm x 1 cm present No
over inner aspect of right arm margins inverted blackening
seen around the wound, corresponding cloth torn over the
injury
Lacerated wound of size 1cm x 0.5 cm present over outer No
aspect right arm margins irregular corresponding cloth torn
over the injury
Multiple tiny penetrating wounds 40 to 50 in number of size No
varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to 0.2 cm x 0.1 cm present
over inner aspect of right forearm, margins inverted
blackening seen around the wound corresponding cloth
have multiple tiny cuts over the injury part
Multiple tiny penetrating wounds 70 to 80 in number of size No
varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to 0.2 cm x 0.1 cm present
over chest extending to abdomen, margins inverted
blackening present around the wound, corresponding cloth
have multiple tiny cuts over the injury part
4 Adv X-Ray Chest and USG Abdomen and Surgeon opinion 4
With respect to the abovesaid injuries, x-ray and surgeon
opinion has been advised and the same is awaited.
Jagsir Singh has suffered two injuries, which also includes
a gun shot injury, and the same are detailed hereinbelow:-
Sr. Injuries Marked Injury
No. Number
Lacerated wound of size 5cm x 1.5cm present over No
inner aspect of left arm, margins inverted and
irregular blackening around wound present
corresponding cloth torn over the injury.
Multiple tiny penetrating wounds 30 to 40 in number No
of size varying from 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm to 0.2 cm x 0.1
cm present over abdomen margins inverted
blackening seen around the wound corresponding
cloth torn over the injury part.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084833
CRM-M-32038-2023 (O&M) [4] 2023:PHHC:084833
With respect to the abovesaid injuries, x-ray and the
surgeon opinion is awaited.
Makhan Singh has suffered two injuries, one on the left
hand and the other on the right knee and the same are detailed
hereinbelow:-
Sr. Injuries Marked Injury
No. Number
Abrasion of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm on index finger of left No
hand
Abrasion of size 2cm x 0.2 cm above right knee. No
Although, the said two injuries are abrasions, but x-ray and
Ortho opinion has been advised regarding the same and the same,
even as per the stand of the State, is still awaited.
From the above, it is prima facie clear that the petitioners,
alongwith other persons, had together planned the attack and had
caused the abovesaid injuries in pursuance of their plan.
Although, the injuries suffered by Makhan Singh are abrasions but
this Court, in view of the abovesaid factors, is not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners who had actively
participated in the said occurrence. The sticks/dandas as well as
the motorcycle are yet to be recovered from the petitioners and
thus, their custodial interrogation is required.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present petition is dismissed.
However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the observations made in the present
case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present
bail application.
22.07.2022 Sd/- (VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE"
3. A perusal of the above order would show that all the facts and
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084833
CRM-M-32038-2023 (O&M) [5] 2023:PHHC:084833
circumstances were taken into consideration and the fact that in the present
case, three persons had been injured, out of which, two persons had received
gunshot injuries was also borne in mind while dismissing the anticipatory bail
of the petitioner and the co-accused Kuldeep Singh. Some of the injuries which
have been received by the said two persons namely Gursewak Singh and Jagsir
Singh were on the chest and abdomen. In the FIR, apart from other offences,
the petitioner and the other accused persons were also alleged to have
committed offences under Section 307 of IPC as well as Section 25 of the Arms
Act, 1959. The petitioner had thereafter filed petition bearing No.CRM-M-
30561-2023 by incorrectly stating that the same was the first anticipatory bail
application and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition
after making the necessary corrections vide order dated 03.07.2023. In the said
order, it was specifically mentioned that in case, any such fresh anticipatory
bail is filed, then all the aspects including the aspect of maintainability would
be considered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present
case, compromise (Annexure P-5) has been effected between the parties and
challan has been presented against the co-accused and the witnesses have stated
that they had seen the accused persons present in the Trial Court and the said
persons had never attacked them and in view of the abovesaid two facts, the
petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. The petitioner has evaded his arrest for a period of more than 11
months. Reliance sought to be placed upon compromise (Annexure P-5) would
not help the petitioner in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and others reported as
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084833
CRM-M-32038-2023 (O&M) [6] 2023:PHHC:084833
2019(5) SCC 688. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the said judgment has held
that offences under Section 307 of IPC and the Arms Act would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and are, therefore, treated to be crime
against the society and not against the individual alone and that criminal
proceedings for the said offences cannot be quashed in exercise of powers
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that the parties have resolved their
dispute. It was however observed that in the case of compromise, it was open to
the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 of IPC is
there for the sake of it or not and for the said purpose, it was open to the High
Court to go into the aspects with respect to nature of weapon used for causing
the said injury and also the part of the body, whether vital or not, on which the
said injury has been caused and thus, necessarily implying that in case, the High
Court was of the opinion that Section 307 of IPC has been mentioned in the
FIR only for the sake of it or is not prima facie made out then the High Court
could exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR
after taking into consideration other aspects as mentioned in the said judgment.
It was further held that even while exercising the powers under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., the High Court was also required to see the conduct of the accused as
to whether he was absconding and while absconding, has managed to enter into
the compromise. In the said case, the High Court had allowed the quashing
petition while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, however, set aside the said judgment and the order quashing
the FIR. The allegations in the FIR to the effect that firearm injury had been
caused by the accused which had hit the complainant was taken into
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084833
CRM-M-32038-2023 (O&M) [7] 2023:PHHC:084833
consideration among other things. In the present case, this Court has taken
into consideration the abovesaid relevant factors and finds that since, in the
present case, several firearm injuries have been caused to the injured with
the pistol and some of the gunshot injuries are on the chest and abdomen and
thus, it cannot be said that incorporation of Section 307 of IPC in the present
case is only for the sake of it. The petitioner has also been absconding and
has chosen to file the present third anticipatory bail application after entering
into the compromise (Annexure P-5) without surrendering before the Police
and thus, even his conduct does not entitle him to anticipatory bail.
6. Even reliance placed upon the statements of the witnesses would
not further the case of the petitioner inasmuch as, on account of the fact that
the petitioner has been evading arrest, no challan has been presented against
the petitioner and the same, as per the stand of the State, would be presented
only after the petitioner surrenders or joins the investigation and since he has
not been tried as an accused, it cannot be stated that the said witnesses have
turned hostile qua the petitioner. It would also be relevant to note that as is
apparent from paragraph 4 of the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the
petitioner, the co-accused of the petitioner namely Kuldeep Singh, Iqbal
Singh and Jaswant Singh have been granted the concession of regular bails by
the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The said regular bails have been granted
to the said persons after having been in custody for a period of more than six
months each. As per para 3 of the petition, it is said three persons namely
Kuldeep, Jaswant Singh and Iqbal Singh against whom the challan has been
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084833
CRM-M-32038-2023 (O&M) [8] 2023:PHHC:084833
presented and in whose favour, the statements have been made by the
witnesses and even the said persons have stayed in custody for a period of
six months.
7. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, more so
the facts that the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner along
with other co-accused was dismissed by this Court vide a detailed order dated
22.07.2022 and the petitioner has evaded his arrest for a period more than 11
months and also the fact that FIR, in the present case, has been registered
under various Sections including Section 307 of IPC as well as Section 25 of
the Arms Act, 1959 and also in view of the law laid down in the abovesaid
judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion
that the present third anticipatory bail application of the petitioner deserves to
be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
9. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the trial and the trial would proceed
independently of the observations made in the present case which are only
for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.
10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.
06.07.2023 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084833
8 of 8
