PARAMJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) PRESENT petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 56 dated 19.12.2010, under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Balongi, District SAS Nagar.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as per the prosecution, are that complainant-Harjinder Singh made a statement that on 18.12.2010, at about 9.15 PM, his cousin Gurpreet Singh had gone to take documents from vehicle bearing No. PB-65-F-3737 belonging to Sadhu Singh uncle of the complainant. After some time, they heard commotion. On hearing that complainant along with his brother Harpreet Singh, father Rattan Singh, sister Kulwinder Kaur and uncle Amrik Singh went towards the house of the petitioner. The complainant party noticed that the petitioner ­ Kulwant Singh, Sarpanch and his sons were quarrelling with Gurpreet Singh. The petitioner and his brother Dilbar Singh armed with .12 bore rifles, Jatinder Singh son of the petitioner having pistol, Amarjit Singh @ Jitti also having pistol and some more persons were also present in the courtyard of the petitioner's house. Upon seeing the complainant party, petitioner raised a lalkara that the complainant party be not spared. Petitioner ­ Kulwant Singh fired a shot with his gun, which hit Rattan Singh on his head. Dilbar Singh also fired from his rifle, which hit on left leg, right ankle and back of the complainant. Complainant took his father Rattan Singh behind the vehicle. Accused persons released more fires upon the complainant party with intention to kill them. In this firing, Harpreet Singh sustained injuries on his right wrist and leg. Amrik Singh also sustained injuries on his both legs. Gurpreet Singh sustained injuries on his head, left thigh and right thing. Kulwinder Kaur also sustained injuries on her leg. Thereafter, the complainant party raised hue and cry. On hearing this, Surjit Singh and Sadhu Singh, uncles of the complainant reached the spot. On seeing them, the accused persons entered into their house with their respective weapons. Injured were taken to the Civil Hospital, Phase- 4, Mohali, where Rattan Singh, father of the complainant was declared dead and Kulwinder Kaur was admitted for her treatment, whereas the other injured were referred to PGI, Chandigarh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was not present at the spot. He was attending a reception at West Wood Resort, Dhakoli (Zirakpur). In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to the CD as referred to in CFSL report (Annexure P/2), wherein the petitioner was shown to be present with Major Harbans Singh, father of the bridegroom. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that during the investigation, supplementary challan under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. dated 24.07.2012 (Annexure P/4) was filed, wherein the petitioner has been found to be innocent. In addition to it, learned senior counsel for the petitioner further argued that at the instance of Dilbar Singh, a cross case has been registered from which it is clear that Dilbar Singh had fired in self-defence and reference to the site plan (Annexure P/3) has also been made. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that this is a case of version and cross version and the complainant party was aggressive. As per the site plan, the complainant party had come to the house of the brother of the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED State counsel, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently argued that plea of alibi is a weak type of evidence and now a days the electronic equipments can be manipulated, date and time can be adjusted as per the requirement. No authenticity can be attached to them. Mere presence at the reception in the evening does not mean that the petitioner was not present at the spot of occurrence in the present case. The petitioner is a Sarpanch, he owns vehicle. The alleged distance between the place of occurrence and West Wood Resort is 25 Kms which is a distance which can be covered on a vehicle within short time. There are specific allegations in the FIR that the petitioner has raised lalkara and fired rifle shot which hit on the head of Rattan Singh, father of the complainant, besides this, other persons of the complainant party also suffered injuries. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail as in the present case, capital sentence is provided. Learned State counsel further argued that charge sheet has been presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against Dilbar Singh and the petitioner. Charge has also been framed on 14.01.2012. They preferred criminal revision viz. CRR No. 239 of 2012 against the framing of charge, which has been dismissed on 25.01.2012 by this Court, even two prosecution witnesses have already been examined. Police had filed the discharge application which has been dismissed by the trial Court on 10.09.2012.;