BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose off above mentioned four petitions filed on behalf of Balwinder Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Pargat Singh, Nirmal Singh, Jagraj, Singh, Harjit Singh, Avtar Singh, Harpinder Singh and Saab Singh seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No. 185 dtd. 6/7/2020 under Ss. 304/307/458/447/511/148/149/188/269/ 353/186 IPC and Ss. 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, Sec. 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act and Sec. 51 of Disaster Management Act at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar.

(2.) The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Dilpreet Singh, resident of Dera Baba Ajit Singh Puhla, Baba Bakala Sahib wherein he alleged that he is nephew of Baba Ajit Singh Puhla and that he alongwith his mother Paramjit Kaur, Mandeep Singh and Surinder Kaur reside at their Dera. It is stated therein that litigation is going on between them and one Ranjit Singh pertaining to land of Dera and the matter is presently pending before the Court of Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and they had apprehension that Ranjit Singh would attack them so as to take forcible possession of the Dera. As such, they had reported about their apprehension to the police and 15 police personnel were present at the Dera for security. It is alleged that on 5/7/2020, they had gone to sleep in their Dera and in the early hours of morning at about 3:30 a.m., they heard sound of firearm shots and noticed Ranjit Singh, Sahib Singh, Gurdev Singh, Harprit Singh, Harpinder Singh, Nirmal Singh, Nihang Sukha Singh, Sukhdev Singh accompanied by 15-20 other persons who were all armed with sticks and rifles had entered into the Dera and had opened fire recklessly and attacked them with an intention to kill them. The police personnel present in the Dera tried to stop the accused but the accused even fired at the police party and the police officials saved themselves by taking shelter under a shed. The complainant stated that he in order to save himself and other members of his family fired at the accused from his licensed Double Barrel .12 bore gun and that it could be possible that one of the accused might have got injured an that in case the complainant had not fired then there would have been loss of life on the side of the complainant and his family.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel representing the petitioners that a false and concocted version has been put forth in the FIR and that in fact it is a case where none from the complainant party sustained any injury whereas one person from the side of the accused lost his life. It has been submitted that the matter pertaining to the land of the Dera infact stands decided in favour of the accused Ranjit Singh wherein mutation was also ordered to be sanctioned in favour of Ranjit Singh though the complainant party has challenged the same by way of filing an appeal, which is pending. The learned counsel have further submitted that some of the petitioners are not even named in the FIR and have subsequently been nominated as accused either on the basis of some supplementary statement or disclosure statements of co-accused which would hardly carry any evidentiary value.