The denial of bail is not for punitive purposes but for the bifocal interests of justice, and the court must consider the nature of the offence, character of the evidence, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, impact on prosecution witnesses and society, and likelihood of tampering when deciding on bail applications.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Verma, J. - This order will dispose of CRM-M-47777-2019, 10057-2020, 53966-2021 and 52739-2021 as the same arise out of a common FIR.

2. These petitions have been filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No. 151 dated 12.10.2014 under Sections 302,148, 149, 120-B I.P.C. registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran (Punjab).

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one Salwinder Singh got recorded his statement before the Investigating Officer that he has one son and five daughters and paddy variety -1509 was brought by him. His son Gurjant Singh, his servant Swaran Singh and his brother-in-law's son- Satnam Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, their paddy was not auctioned and they put Tarpaulin on the heap of paddy and left their Farm House Behak and his son was driving his Motor Platina and his servant Swaran Singh was sitting on its pillion and he was sitting on the pillion of Satnam Singh and his brother-in-law's son. They started from Grain Market Sarhali to their Farm House on the Pacca road. His son and servant were ahead of them whereas he and Satnam Singh were following them and when they were 200 yards short of G.T. Road, at about 7.00 P.M., they saw in the light of the motorcycle that petitioner- Balbir Singh armed with rifle, Jarmanjeet Singh armed with Kirpan, Stalanjit Singh armed with Datar, petitoner Uday Singh armed with Datar, Gurdev Singh armed with Datar, Gurucharan Singh armed with Datar, petitoner-Chamkaur Singh armed with Kirpan and petitoner-Sukhraj Singh armed with Datar alongwith 7/8 persons armed with Datars and Kirpans standing on the road. On seeing his son on the Motorcycle, petitioner-Balbir Singh raised Lalkara saying to catch him and teach Gurjant Singh a lesson for picking up quarrel with them. On hearing Lalkara, Jarmanjeet Singh, Stalanjit Singh, petitoner- Uday Singh, Gurdev Singh, Gurcharan Singh, petitoner-Chamkaur Singh, petitioner-Sukhraj Singh and unidentified persons started causing injuries to his son indiscriminately. On seeing this, he alongwith his brother-in-law's son Satnam Singh stepped back out of fear and cried loudly 'killed, killed' on which all the above assailants ran away towards Harike on the GT road via Canal minor Bridge Khara in a car and motorcycles which were parked near the GT road with their respective weapons. He alongwith his brother-in-law's son Satnam Singh stepped ahead and saw his servant Swaran Singh falling on the road and his son Gurjant Singh was lying fatally injured in the paddy fields near the metalled road. His son Gurjant Singh died on the spot. His employee Swaran Singh had also suffered extensive injuries upon his person and the motorcycle was also damaged. Then he called his brother-in-law Sukhdev Singh and son-in-law Dogar Singh son of Swaran Singh by giving telephonic call and also informed the police on phone about the incident. The accused were nursing a grudge against his son due to an earlier quarrel with them. The accused persons had killed his son in connivance with each other. On the basis of the above said statement, the aforesaid FIR was registered against the accused.

4. Mr. P.S.Hundal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-Balbir Singh submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner alongwith other accused persons were earlier declared innocent in an inquiry conducted by IGP on the basis of polygraph test which was carried out at Delhi. Learned senior counsel submits that the only allegations against petitioner-Balbir Singh are that he was having a rifle and raised a lalkara, meaning thereby that he did not touch the deceased even with his little finger what to say of firing with his firearm. Moreover, the petitioner was having licensed DBBL gun and in the FIR it has been mentioned 'rifle'. There is no allegation that the petitioner had used his li