CRM No.M-16719 of 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-16719 of 2017
Decided on: 25.05.2017
Karan Partap Singh
….Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
….Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present : Mr. M.S. Basra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the complainant.
REKHA MITTAL, J.
The petitioner prays for grant of regular bail under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) in FIR No.51
dated 28.02.2016, for offence punishable under Sections 302, 354 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and
25/27 of the Arms Act registered in Police Station Civil Lines, Batala,
District Gurdaspur.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per
allegations raised in the FIR, the petitioner took out a revolver and
handed it over to Parminder Singh @ Manna who fired a shot at
Rupinder Kaur wife of complainant – Sukhdev Singh. It is further
submitted that unfortunate occurrence in question took place when
Sukhdev Singh and his family as well as the accused had gone to attend
Shagun ceremony of Rajbir Singh son of Sarwan Singh on 28.02.2016
in Dhindsa Marriage Palace, Batala. It is further submitted that
Sukhdev Singh was examined before the trial Court and he has not
1 of 3
08-06-2017 19:14:32 :::
CRM No.M-16719 of 2017 2
attributed any overt act to the petitioner with regard to handing over the
revolver to Parminder Singh @ Manna who purportedly fired a shot
towards Rupinder Kaur which hit on the left side of her head. It is
further argued that material witnesses in the case have already been
examined but conclusion of the trial may take some more time.
Counsel representing State of Punjab has submitted that
the first occurrence constituting offence under Section 354 IPC
occurred at 02:30 PM when Parminder Singh @ Manna, Dilbagh Singh
@ Bagha and Karan Partap Singh @ Karan (petitioner herein) teased
wife of the complainant – Rupinder Kaur (since deceased) when she
had gone to buy balloons for her children near the main gate of the
palace. For the second time at about 03:30 PM, the aforesaid persons
raised lalkaras. Dilbagh Singh @ Bagha said “what are you waiting for,
they have insulted us.” In the meanwhile, Karan Partap Singh @ Karan
took out a revolver, handed it over to Parminder Singh @ Manna and he
fired a shot at Rupinder Kaur which hit on left side of her head and
proved fatal. It is argued with vehemence that in view of gravity of
offence attributed to the petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged
on bail particularly in the circumstances that the prosecution is likely to
close its evidence within a short span of time.
Counsel for the complainant has echoed the arguments
advanced by counsel for the State with the submission that out of 06
witnesses that remain to be examined, 02 are bound down for
30.05.2017 and the prosecution is likely to conclude its evidence
shortly.
I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the paperbook
2 of 3
08-06-2017 19:14:33 :::
CRM No.M-16719 of 2017 3
and the police records.
The petitioner has been attributed a specific role both in
regard to the occurrence that took place at 02:30 PM with regard to
teasing Rupinder Kaur as well as the occurrence that happened at 03:30
PM. All the three accused came together, started raising lalkaras,
Dilbagh Singh extorted others, the present petitioner took out a revolver
but shot was fired by Parminder Singh @ Manna. Admittedly, the
material witnesses in the case have already been examined. The
prosecution undertakes to conclude its evidence within a short span of
time.
In view of the above, without commenting upon merits of
the case, in case the prosecution fails to conclude its evidence by
30.07.2017, without any fault attributable to the petitioner, the
petitioner shall be released on bail subject to satisfaction of the trial
Court. In case he is released on bail, he shall abide by the following
conditions:-
(i) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of the case so as to dissuade his/her from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
and
(ii) He shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court.
25.05.2017 (REKHA MITTAL)
yakub JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
08-06-2017 19:14:33 :::