Lal Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M 26423/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:09/05/2016.

Lal Singh ............Petitioner vs State of Punjab .............Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.LS Sekhon,Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Kirat Singh Sidhu,DAG Punjab with ASI Gurdev Singh Mr.Harjit Singh,Advocate for the complainant. Jaswant Singh,J(Oral) Prayer is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.67 dated 13.9.2014 under Sections 302,342,34 IPC, PS Sadar Budhlada, Distt.Mansa.

As per eye witness account of complainant-Satgur Singh he saw his younger brother Kharka Singh at around 7.30 pm on 12.9.2014 in the courtyard of their neighbour i.e. Petitioner-accused Lal Singh being inflicted injuries. Co-accused sons of Lal Singh i.e. Harmesh Singh armed with an axe and Makhan Singh armed with an iron khurchana inflicted injuries on the head of Kharka Singh. Petitioner accused is alleged to be standing with a .12 bore rifle and raising a lalkara while the other co-accused Bhura Singh alleged to have given a stick blow on the right ankle of Kharka Singh who had fallen on the ground after suffering injuries on the head. Kharka Singh succumbed to injuries on 13.9.2014. Case of the prosecution is that Kharka Singh RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.05.10 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M 26423/2015 was having illicit relations with wife of co-accused Makhan Singh. It is contended that petitioner accused is 70 years old and falsely implicated in the case. Even otherwise the role attributed is of standing with a rifle and raising a lalkara. It is next submitted that both the alleged eye witnesses have since been examined and remaining 18 Pws are yet to testify. Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 27.9.2014.

Counsel for the complainant while opposing the prayer for bail does not dispute the role attributed to the accused petitioner Lal Singh.

Learned State counsel on instructions does not dispute the custody period and the role attributed to the petitioner accused. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the custody period, role attributed and the fact that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, present petition is allowed and accused-petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 09.05.2016 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.05.10 11:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document