Baljit Singh @ Gorkha v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- December 12, 2017 Baljit Singh @ Gorkha

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN Present:- Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

*** This is a petition for regular bail filed by accused Baljit Singh @ Gorkha, an accused in F.I.R. No. 29 dated 18.3.2017 for offence under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that F.I.R. in this case was recorded on the basis of statement of complainant Baldev Singh son of Makhan Singh, resident of village Dheawal PS Cholah Sahib, District Tarn Taran, wherein he has stated that one of his daughter Pinder Kaur wife of Late Harjinder Singh was residing with her sons namely Lovepreet Singh, aged 17 years and Japreet Singh, aged 14 years in rented accommodation at Rajinder Nagar. A few days back, Lovepreet Singh called him up and told that he was upset since some persons working with him were teasing him. At asking of the complainant, he met him on 17.3.2017. However, when he

reached there he found that Lovepreet Singh had locked himself in the room and was not giving any response. When the door was broken open they found that Lovepreet Singh had hanged himself from a ceiling fan. He was removed from there. They came across mobile phone of Lovepreet Singh and upon checking it, a video of 46 second was found to be recorded in which Lovepreet Singh had stated that Gorkha, his uncle Sonu and Nishan were responsible for his death. That video clip was down loaded in the form of CD which was sent to FSL Mohali along with mobile phone and as per report received from there, it was found to be genuine. The accused was arrested in this case on 21.4.2017. He is in custody since then. It is contended that trial is going on and 14 witnesses have been examined out of 30.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel besides going through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deceased and accused were close friends and petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence; he has been wrongly involved in this case, therefore, he be granted concession of bail, Whereas State counsel has contended that he is specifically named in the F.I.R. and video clip blaming petitioner and co-accused of suicide of Lovepreet Singh is there as such he be not granted bail.

After hearing the rival contentions of the case, accused being specifically named in the F.I.R. and existence of video clip blaming petitioner and co-accused of the suicide of Lovepreet Singh, no ground is made out for grant of regular bail.

The petition stands dismissed. However, while parting with discussion, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in that Court.

(H.S. MADAAN) JUDGE December 12, 2017 p.singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No