Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh @ Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 23 February, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:034408
CRM-M-5813-2022 # 1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-5813-2022
Date of Decision:-23.02.2023
Ranjit Singh @ Sonu.
......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
AND
CRM-M-48154-2022
Yuvraj Singh @ Raja.
......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Manbir Singh Basra, Advocate for the Petitioner
(in CRM-M-5813-2022).
Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the Petitioner
(in CRM-M-48154-2022).
Mr. Shubham Kaushik, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate for the Complainant.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
By this common order I shall dispose of both the
aforementioned petitions as the same have arisen out of one and the same
FIR.
The Prayer in these petitions under Section 438 Cr.PC is for the
grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.127 dated 20.12.2021 under
Sections 307, 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:034408
CRM-M-5813-2022 # 2#
Station Sri Hargobindpur, District Gurdaspur.
The brief facts of the case are that statement of one Sukhraj
Singh @ Sukha was recorded to the effect that he was an agriculturist. On
19.12.2021 at about 3.30/3.45pm he had gone to New Trend Salon at
Harchowal for a haircut along with his friend Karan Singh @ Karan Aulakh.
In the meantime Ranjit Singh @ Sonu Aulakh (petitioner in CRM-M-5813-
2022) with whom they had an earlier dispute came inside Salon. He was
carrying a 315 bore rifle and a 32 bore pistol. He fired at him (complainant)
who sat down and the shot struck the wall of the Salon grazing his
(complainant's) right arm. In the meantime Karan Aulakh caught hold of
the petitioner-Ranjit Singh @ Sonu and snatched his rifle. A scuffle ensued
in which the petitioner also received gunshot injuries at his (complainant's)
instance by way of self defence. When his friend Karan Aulakh ran outside,
three companions of Sonu Aulakh namely Yuvraj Singh @ Raja (petitioner
in CRM-M-48154-2022) having a pistol and two unidentified persons
carrying double barrel guns and one carrying a pistol fired shots at them
(complainant party). The fired shots passed by, touching the jacket worn by
his friend Karan Aulakh. The motive for the occurrence was that he
(complainant) was the president of a party and Sonu Aulakh was the
president of his rival party and there had also been an earlier altercation.
Based on the aforementioned complaint, the present FIR came
to be registered.
The counsel for the petitioner-Ranjit Singh @ Sonu contends
that it is a case of version and cross version. The petitioner also received
firearm injuries on his body and a cross version bearing DDR No.10 dated
22.12.2021 stands registered against complainant Sukhraj Singh and
Gurkaranbir Singh. The injuries on the persons of the petitioner are
apparent from the MLR (Annexure P-2). In fact the petitioner had gone to
the Salon where the complainant party snatched his rifle from him and fired
shots at him. The whole occurrence had been captured in a CCTV Camera.
The licenced weapon of offence stands recovered. Since the petitioner had
joined investigation after the interim order passed by this Court, there was
no requirement for custodial interrogation and the petitioner ought to be
granted the concession of anticipatory bail.
The Counsel for the petitioner-Yuvraj Singh @ Raja on the
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:034408
CRM-M-5813-2022 # 3#
other hand contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case at the instance of the complainant who is a habitual criminal
with multiple cases registered against him. No specific injury has been
attributed to the petitioner. As per the prosecution case the petitioner is
stated to have stayed outside the Salon armed with a weapon. However, a
CCTV footage of his own residence would show that at the relevant time
he was at his home and not at the place of occurrence. Since the petitioner
had joined investigation his custodial interrogation was not required and he
could be granted the concession of anticipatory bail.
The Counsel for the State on the other hand with respect to the
contentions of petitioner-Ranjit Singh @ Sonu contends that the petitioner
is the main accused. The CCTV footage would clearly establish that the
petitioner entered the Salon with his two licenced weapons and fired at the
complainant party who received injuries. It was only subsequently during
the course of a scuffle that the complainant is stated to have fired at the
petitioner thereby causing injuries to him as well. The two weapons belong
to the petitioner undoubtedly stand recovered but the nature of the
allegations levelled against the petitioner and the manner in which the
occurrence took place does not entitle him to the grant of anticipatory bail.
In fact the petitioner is also an accused in FIR No.35 dated 26.5.2015 under
Sections 447, 506, 427, 511, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act P.S.
Shri Hargobindpur (cancellation accepted), FIR No.117 dated 11.10.2018
under Sections 307, 427, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC P.S. Shri Hargobindpur
(under investigation), FIR No.253 dated 12.11.2020 under Sections 365,
341, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act P.S. Shri
Hargobindpur (on bail), FIR No.95 dated 02.08.2008 under Sections 326,
324, 323, 452, 380 and 34 IPC P.S. Shri Hargobindpur (cancellation filed),
FIR No.121 dated 09.07.2020 under Section 181 IPC P.S. Shri
Hargobindpur (under investigation-on bail) and FIR No.24 dated
19.03.2021 under Sections 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 P.S. Shri Hargobindpur
(on bail). Therefore, his criminal antecedents also did not entitle him to the
grant of bail.
The learned State Counsel with respect to the contentions of
the petitioner-Yuvraj Singh @ Raja submits that the CCTV footage would
clearly show that the petitioner was armed and standing outside the salon.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:034408
CRM-M-5813-2022 # 4#
All the accused had come together to commit the offence in question. In
furtherance of the same, the petitioner also fired at the complainant party.
The defence of the accused/petitioner that he was at home is also not borne
out from the CCTV footage of the residence of the petitioner in which the
time shown appears to have been tampered with. Even otherwise, the
CCTV footage of the place of occurrence is clear and categoric and has also
been shown to the counsel for the petitioner today. Since the recovery of
the weapon is to be effected from the petitioner and he is an accused in four
other cases bearing FIR No.112 of 2017 under Sections 324, 323, 341 IPC
P.S. Bholath, Kapurthala (on bail), FIR No.45 dated 30.06.2015 under
Sections 323, 324, 341, 379, 427, 148, 149 IPC P.S. Shri Hargobindpur
(quashed upon compromise), FIR No.253 dated 12.11.2020 under Sections
365, 341, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act P.S.
Shri Hargobindpur (on bail) and FIR No.24 dated 19.03.2021 under
Sections 324, 323, 427, 148, 149 P.S. Shri Hargobindpur (on bail), he was
not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.
The Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed these
bail applications and contends that the manner in which the occurrence took
place did not entitle the petitioners to the grant of anticipatory bail. They
came armed with fire arms and caused injuries to the complainant. The
entire occurrence has been captured in a CCTV camera both inside and
outside the Salon. There was absolutely no justification for the petitioner-
Ranjit Singh @ Sonu to enter the Salon armed with two of his licensed
weapons. Therefore the intention was clear i.e. to cause the death of the
complainant. Merely, because the petitioners had joined investigation did
not entitle them to the grant of anticipatory bail.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.
Undoubtedly, the allegations are extremely serious while Ranjit
Singh @ Sonu entered the Salon and fired from his licenced weapon upon
the complainant party, in their defence they are also stated to have fired at
him with his weapon as is borne out from the contents of the FIR itself.
Similarly petitioner-Yuvraj Singh @ Raja was waiting outside with his
weapon and fired at the complainant party. Merely because the petitioners
have joined investigation and some of the weapons have been handed over
would not entitle them to the grant of anticipatory bail.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:034408
CRM-M-5813-2022 # 5#
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Livelaw (SC) 870'', held that merely
because custodial interrogation was not required by itself could not be a
ground to grant anticipatory bail. The first and the foremost thing the Court
hearing the anticipatory bail application is to consider is the prima facie
case against the accused. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
" It may be true, as pointed out by learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No.1, that charge-sheet has already been filed. It will
be unfair to presume on our part that the Investigating Officer does
not require Respondent No.1 for custodial interrogation for the
purpose of further investigation.
Be that as it may, even assuming it a case where Respondent
No.1 is not required for custodial interrogation, we are satisfied that
the High Court ought not to have granted discretionary relief of
anticipatory bail.
We are dealing with a matter wherein the original
complainant (appellant herein) has come before this Court praying
that the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court to the accused
should be cancelled. To put it in other words, the complainant says
that the High Court wrongly exercised its discretion while granting
anticipatory bail to the accused in a very serious crime like POCSO
and, therefore, the order passed by the High Court granting
anticipatory bail to the accused should be quashed and set aside. In
many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common
argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required
and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be
a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial
interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would
be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation
can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other
grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail.
There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of
the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the
prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or
overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first
and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:034408
CRM-M-5813-2022 # 6#
application should consider is the prima facie case put up against
the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked
into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial
interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline custodial
interrogation. However, even if custodial interrogation is not
required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant
anticipatory bail".
In view of the seriousness of the allegations and to take the
investigation to its logical conclusion, the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner is certainly necessary. Therefore, I find no merit in both the
petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
February 23, 2023
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:034408
6 of 6
