The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a trial to resolve issues of identity and contradictory statements before granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - CRM-10307-2022

Allowed as prayed for.

Anneuxre P-1, i.e. statement of PW-1 Jaspreet Singh is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CRM-M-9796-2022

1. This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.86 dated 21.04.2021 registered under Sections 323, 325, 341, 307, 34 IPC (Section 302 IPC added later on) at Police Station Sadar Samana, District Patiala.

2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the FIR was registered on the statement of Jaspreet Singh, who is son of the deceased Sukhdev Singh and in the said FIR, he has stated that he had witnessed the occurrence which had taken place at 7:30 PM on 20.04.2021 in which, three persons were stated to be involved. It has been highlighted that in the FIR it has been stated that "now I have come to know that out of the persons who had beaten my father, one of them is Sohi Baba". It is further mentioned in the FIR that said statement has been given on 21.04.2021 with respect to the incident that took place on 20.04.2021 after consulting his brother Lovepreet Singh. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same clearly shows that the complainant, who is stated to have seen the occurrence, had not said that Sohi Baba was the person whom he saw inflicting injuries. It is also argued that the petitioner is Amarjit Singh and is not known as Sohi Baba. Further reference has been made to supplementary statement of the complainant dated 23.04.2021 in which, he has stated that since, on 21.04.2021, he was nervous so he forgot to mention that on 19.04.2021 Amarjit Singh Sohi Baba, Rajinder Singh alias Chichu and Arun Kumar alias Chhotu had chased his father to beat him up. It is submitted that there is no complaint with respect to any incident occurring on 19.04.2021 and there is nothing to prima facie show that Amarjit Singh is Sohi Baba. It is also submitted that in any case that said statement dated 23.04.2021 is not reflected in the examination-in-chief of the complainant Jaspreet Singh, who has been examined as PW-1. It has been argued that the petitioner was initially granted interim bail vide order dated 24.05.2021 (Annexure P-10) as initially, the FIR had been registered under Sections 323, 325, 341, 307, 34 IPC and the petitioner had joined investigation. On 27.05.2021, i.e. after one month and seven days of the incident, Sukhdev Singh had died and thus, on 27.05.2021, the petitioner was arrested, in violation of law laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram vs State of Jharkhand reported as 2019 Latest Case Law 527 SC inasmuch as, permission of the Court was not sought before arresting the petitioner. It is argued that after arrest of the petitioner on 27.05.2021, the prosecution tried to introduce certain additional facts by recording second supplementary statement of Jaspreet Singh on 29.05.2021 (Annexure P-3), as per which, he had further investigated the matter and had stated that certain things had taken place in front of his brother Lovepreet Singh and thus, Lovepreet Singh was sought to be introduced as a witness. It has been argued that a perusal of the FIR would show that the FIR was registered after consulting his brother Lovepreet Singh and said Lovepreet Singh did not get any statement recorded till 29.05.2021. It is submitted that statement of Lovepreet Singh dated 29.05.2021 is thus, apparently an afterthought and at any rate, the only eye witness in the present case is Jaspreet Singh, who has now been examined as PW-1 and in his evidence, he has denied having given the supplementary statement dated 29.05.2021. It is further stated that even the supplementary statement dated 23.04.2021 does not find mention in his examination-in-chief and that the said statement of PW-1 is self- contradictory as, in the examination-in-chief, the complainant had stated that he knew the present petition