Lakhveer Singh Alias Motu v. State Of Punjab

under Sections 120-B, 148, 149, 201, 302, 323, 364 of the Indian Penal Code , the aforesaid FIR (Annexure P-1) 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, after taking his meals, had gone for a walk near the park of Raghu Pati Dharamshala, Maur Kalan, as per his routine, however when he did not return for some time, 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 Kharaji Singh s/o Amarjeet Singh, Sukhveer Singh

@ Soni, Lakhvir Singh @ Motu (petitioner) sons of Sham Singh, Manga Singh s/o Pritam Singh, were inside the car and 4-5 unidentified persons on their motorcycles bearing registration Nos.PB-80-1789 (Splender) and PB-80-2495 (Platina) also came behind the said car; and they started forcibly putting complainant's 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 complainant's son in the car and fled away.

Thereafter, the complainant along with the neighbours and relatives started inquiring about her son and in the morning, her son-in-law Gagandeep Singh, who was also looking for her son, came to her and told 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 Maur Charat 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, Sukhveer Singh @ Soni, Lakhvir Singh @ Motu (petitioner) and Manga Singh of Maur Kalan 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 on head, face, chin, right leg and left arm with the sharp edged weapons. 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.

6.

It is

submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR (Annexure P-1), considering the fact that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 09.07.2020, whereas, the FIR was got registered on 10.07.2020. It is submitted that there is no direct eye witness regarding the allegation of the murder of Amrinder Singh @ Manja (son of the complainant). Learned counsel states that the present case is based upon slipshod investigation of the police and the police has also not obtained the tower location and Call Detail Records of the petitioner's mobile.

might influence the witnesses and also abscond to delay the trial.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012(2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to

find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 9.

nvestigation in the case is complete,