High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/18245/2022dismissed

Shivraj Singh @ Kharaji v. State Of Punjab

2023-08-18Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger9 pages

210 (3 cases)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-18245-2022 (O&M) SHIVRAJ SINGH @ KHARAJI

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

(2) CRM-M-48732-2022 (O&M) LAKHBIR SINGH @ MOTTU

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

(3) CRM-M-48916-2022 (O&M) Date of decision :August 18th, 2023 SUKHBIR SINGH @ SONI

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. JasdeepSinghWalia, Advocate and Mr. Akamjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRM-M-18245-2022).

Ms. Archana Arora, Advocate for Dr. Rau P.S. Girwar, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (inCRM-M-48732-2022 and CRM-M-48916-2022).

Mr. Harjinder S. Sidhu, A.A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the complainant (in all the cases).

HARSH BUNGER, J.

This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing CRM-M18245-2022 titled as "Shivraj Singh @ Kharaji Versus State of Punjab", CRM-M-48732-2022 titled as "Lakhbir Singh @ Mottu Versus State of Punjab" and CRM-M-48916-2022 titled as "Sukhbir Singh @ Soni Versus State of Punjab" as all of them have emanated from common FIR. 2.

Prayer in all these three petitions, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Cr.P.C.), is for grant of regular bail to petitioners namely, Shivraj Singh @ Kharaji, Lakhbir Singh @ Mottu and Sukhbir Singh @ Soni, in case FIR No.148 dated 10.07.2020, under Sections 302, 364, 201, 120-B, 323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the IPC'), registered at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda.

Custody certificates of petitioners namely, Shivraj Singh @ Kharaji, Lakhbir Singh @ Mottu and Sukhbir Singh @ Soni, in all these three petitions have been filed by learned State counsel, which have been taken on record on the respective case files, vide order dated 19.05.2023. 4.

Briefly, the aforesaid case FIR was registered on the complaint of one Balvir Kaur, alleging therein that she was married to Sukhchand Singh around 27-28 years back and they had one daughter Ekampreet (25 years) and one son Amrinder Singh @ Manja (23 years). As per the complainant, her husband Sukhchand Singh died about two years ago and on 09.07.2020, at about 8:00 P.M. her son Amrinder Singh @ Manja had gone for a walk after taking his meals in a park Maur Kalan near Raghupati Dharamshala as per his routine and when he did not return for some time, then the complainant went towards the park to see him, then

one Maruti Car came there and she noticed in the lights emitting from the neighbourhood that in the car there were Kharaji Singh s/o Amarjeet Singh, Sukhveer Singh @ Soni, Lakhvir Singh @ Motu sons of Sham Singh, Manga Singh s/o Pritam Singh and 4-5 unidentified persons on their motorcycles bearing No. PB-80-1789 (Splender) and PB-80-2495 (Platina) and they started forcibly putting her son (who was in the park) in the car. As per the complainant, she along with one Jaswinder Singh @ Judge s/o Bhola Singh who is also stated to be present in the park, tried to resist the assailants but they caused injuries to Jaswinder Singh @ Judge and forcibly put her son in the car and fled away.

As per the complainant, she along with the neighbours and relatives started inquiring about her son and in the morning, her son-in-law Gagandeep Singh s/o Kulwant Singh came to her, who was also looking for her son and told her that he has come to know that dead body of Amrinder Singh @ Manja was trapped in the bushes of the Canal Kotla Branch, Bridge Khetawala in the area of village MaurCharat Singh, whereupon the complainant along with her son-in-law Gagandeep Singh and one Sukhpal Singh @ Sukhi rushed to that place and after identifying, took out the dead body of her son from the canal.

As per the complainant, she is of firm belief that Kharaji Singh, SukhveerSingh @Soni, Lakhvir Singh @ Motu and Manga Singh of MaurKalan along with 4-5 unidentified persons had forcibly abducted and murdered her son and threw his body in the Canal Kotla Branch after causing him injuries with the sharp edged weapons on his head, face, chin, right leg, left arm. It is alleged that the motive for causing the injuries was that her son had a quarrel with Kharaji Singh and others a few days ago. It is alleged that the said persons after having common intention had abducted her son and killed him. Accordingly, the aforesaid case FIR has been registered.

Petitioners namely, Shivraj Singh @ Kharaji, Lakhbir Singh @ Mottu and Sukhbir Singh @ Soni, had applied for their respective regular bail before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda; however, the same were dismissed vide separate orders dated 21.03.2022, 26.08.2022 and 26.08.2022, respectively. 6.

All these three petitioners have now filed their respective petitions before this Court, by submitting that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, considering the fact that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place in presence of the complainant and one Jaswinder Singh @ Judge on 09.07.2020 at about 08:00 P.M. whereas, the FIR was got registered on 10.07.2020 at about 3:15 P.M. It is submitted that there is no direct eye witness regarding the allegation of the murder and the prosecution story is falsified from the mere fact that the son of the complainant was allegedly abducted by the petitioners on 09.07.

2020 in the presence of the complainant and one Jaswinder Singh @ Judge; however, the matter was not reported to the police on 09.07.2020 nor to any other person. It is submitted that even as per the allegations contained in the FIR, at the time of occurrence, Jaswinder Singh @ Judge is stated to have suffered injuries when he was trying to resist the accused persons. It is further submitted that as per the post-mortem report, there are total 13 injuries on the body of the deceased Amrinder Singh @ Manja and the alleged weapon(s)have been foisted upon the petitioners.

matter was not reported to the police. It is submitted that instead of reporting the matter to the police, the complainant along with Gagandeep Singh themselves went to the spot to take out the dead body from the bushes of canal. Learned counsel for the petitioners (in all three petitions) submit that the present case is based upon the shoddy investigation of the police and the police has not investigated the tower location and CDR report of the petitioners' mobiles. It is contended that Jaswinder Singh @ Judge, was examined as PW-1 in this case, has changed his version. It is further contended that the aforesaid witness Jaswinder Singh @ Judge, is himself involved in the NDPS case and is trying to give false evidence against the petitioners.

It is next contended that deceased Amrinder Singh @ Manja, was related to a local gang and was always threatening the local youngsters and there were complaints against him, including the complaint submitted by the mother of Sukhbir Singh @ Soni and due to that grudge, the complainant has falsely implicated the petitioners.

! "

! # " "the trial in this case is likely to take long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for indefinite period It is further stated that the petitioners arer

$ "

Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer of petitioners for grant of regular bail on the ground of seriousness and gravity of the offence.It is submitted that there are specific allegations against the

petitioners and the offence relates to death of the son of the complainant namely Amrinder Singh @ Manja. It is next submitted that the regular bail of another co-accused namely Manga Singh, being CRM-M-13281-2022 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2022, by noticing that Manga Singh was specifically named in FIR and was identified by complainant at the spot. It is further submitted that since the allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature, accordingly there is strong apprehension that if they are released on bail then they may tamper evidence by threatening or influencing the prosecution witnesses or may abscond and flee from justice which may delay the trial; accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the above-mentioned petitions has been made. 8.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper books as well as the custody certificates filed by learned counsel for the respondent-State of Punjab, in all the above-said three petitions. 9.

A perusal of the FIR would show that the petitioners herein have been specifically named in the FIR and have been identified by the complainant at the spot. The petitioners are facing serious charges for murder of Amrinder Singh @ Manja, who is the son of the complainant and there were multiple fatal injuries on his body, including head and face. The offence under Section 302 of the IPC is the gravest and serious in nature. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the manner in which the case was registered after a delay of almost 17 hours and also that the alleged eye witness i.e. Jaswinder Singh @ Judge who also suffered an injury on 09.07.2020 while resisting the attempt of the petitioners while taking the son of the complainant, having not reported the matter promptly, would be a subject matter of trial. Furthermore, considering the specific allegations against one of the main accused

namely, Manga Singh, that he was named in the FIR and had been identified by the complainant at the spot and his complicity is evident; the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.07.2022 passed in CRM-M-13281-2022, dismissed the regular bail petition filed by him. 10.

% "

! "

! # ! " my considered opinion, the petitioners cannot be released on bail solely on the basis of long incarceration in jail or on the ground that the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future; especially when the petitioners are being tried for a serious and heinous offence of murder of

In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.

Rajesh Ranjan @ PappuYadav, 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 254, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"The condition laid down under Section 437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. In the impugned order it is noticed that the High Court has given the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused and the unlikelihood of trial concluding in the near future as grounds sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of the fact that the accused stands charged of offences punishable with life imprisonment or even death penalty. In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitled the accused to be enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded, in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail."

& " '

(% #$

" )*

" Concededly, the trial in this case is undergoing. The guilt of the accused shall be determined during the trial.+

" -

. !

" /

" , 0 , 1 . 0" - , 1 2 ,- , 1 ,

! "- !

" $ - #

Nothing stated here-in-above shall be construed as an expressionof opinion on the merits of the cases and the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the present cases which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petitions. Pending application/s, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 16.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.

August 18th, 2023 (HARSH BUNGER) Himani/gurpreet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No