Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhvir Singh @ Sukhbir Singh ... vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 2023
CRM-M-54463-2022 # 1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-54463-2022
Date of Decision:-25.01.2023
Sukhvir Singh @ Sukhbir Singh Sidhu.
......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Rohit Singla, Advocate for the Complainant.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The Prayer in this petition under Section 438 Cr.PC is for the
grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.232 dated 11.09.2022 under
Sections 307, 323, 324, 341, 148, 149, 506, 427 IPC and Sections 326 IPC
added later on vide DDR No.23 dated 5.10.2022 registered at Police Station
Civil Lines, Bathinda, District Bathinda.
2. The present FIR came to be registered at the instance of
Gurmeet Singh who stated that he was an employee with the Electricity
Board. A few days prior to the occurrence he had started PTE Study from
Brills School, Ajit Road, Bathinda and he travelled there daily. His friend
Gurjot Singh and Gurpreet Singh who were studying with him at Brills
School took him from the bus stand in their car and after closing hour they
left him at the bus stand. On 07.09.2022 he and his friend had a lunch break
and had gone to bring their meals from the car standing near the street.
When they reached near the car, then 8/10 unidentified persons on four
motor cycles who were carrying deadly weapons encircled him. He could
recognise Gagandeep Singh @ Gagna (petitioner) and Surjit Singh @
1 of 5
CRM-M-54463-2022 # 2#
Shivraj Singh (since granted bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge
Bathinda vide order dated 29.11.2022). The petitioner raised a lalkara that
he should be finished. Surjit Singh fired at him. He (Complainant) got
frightened and pushed another boy in front of him and ran towards Gali
No.8, Ajit Road. Then all the boys chased him. While running, his foot
slipped and he fell down. Then Gagandeep Singh @ Gagna (petitioner),
Surjit Singh @ Shivraj Singh and 08 unidentified person attacked him.
The petitioner took his phone and broke the same. Thereafter the petitioner
gave a gandasa blow aimed at his head with an intention to kill him. In
order to save himself, he (complainant) raised his left arm. The gandasa
struck the elbow of his left arm. In the meantime, Surjit Singh @ Shivraj
Singh gave him a gandasa blow with an intention to kill him. In order to
save himself (complainant) he raised his right arm. The gandasa struck the
upper part of his right arm elbow. Thereafter Surjit Singh @ Shivraj Singh
gave him a gandasa blow and he in order to save himself he raised both his
arms on his head. The gandasa struck below his left arm elbow. Thereafter
unknown persons gave rod blows to him on his right leg continuously. The
rod blow struck the centre of his leg. Thereafter, they all gave him more
beatings. Then Gagandeep Singh @ Gagna asked Surjit Singh @ Shivraj
Singh to take out a pistol and fire at him (complainant). Then he
(complainant) raised a noise of maarta maarta. At this the accused fled
from the spot on their motor cycles along with their respective weapons.
Had the people not gathered at the spot the accused would have killed
him(complainant).
3. Initially the present FIR was registered against Gagandeep
Singh @ Gagna and Surjit Singh @ Shivraj Singh. The petitioner and his
co-accused Sandeep Singh were named as accused on the basis of the
statement of Gurpiar Singh son of Gurdas Singh (father of the complainant)
vide rapat no.26 dated 5.10.2022.
4. When this matter came up for hearing on 23.11.2022 the
following order was passed:-
" Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant, on instructions from ASI Amritpal Singh, submits
that injury No. 1, which is a grievous injury resulting into
fracture on the right leg of the victim, is attributed to the
2 of 5
CRM-M-54463-2022 # 3#
petitioner.
Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
some time to address arguments.
List again on 30.11.2022.
The Investigating Officer is directed to supply copy a
copy of the video recording to learned counsel for the petitioner,
during the course of the day."
5. The Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is
not named in the FIR. No specific role or injury has been attributed to him.
Specific injuries have been attributed only to Gagandeep Singh @ Gagna
and Surjit Singh @ Shivraj Singh. Since the petitioner was ready and
willing to join investigation, no case for custodial interrogation was made
out and the petitioner ought to be granted the concession of anticipatory
bail.
6. The Counsel for the State while referring to the reply dated
21.01.2023 on the other hand contends that in terms of the order dated
23.11.2022 the injury attributed to the petitioner is a grievous injury
attracting Section 325 IPC. The photographs Annexure R-1 appended along
with the reply filed by the State, extracted from the CCTV footage would
clearly show that the petitioner was armed with a rod, Gagandeep Singh was
armed with gandasi and Surjit Singh @ Shivraj Singh was also armed with
gandasi. All of the accused including the petitioner brutally assaulted the
complainant. In fact, the complainant had even refused to accept
Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the co-accused Gagandeep Singh @
Gagna. Five to Six more persons were to be arrested and the motor cycle
and weapons were to be recovered. Thus the custodial interrogation of the
petitioner was certainly necessary.
7. The Counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail
application contending that the petitioner is one of the main accused having
been attributed a grievous injury on the person of the complainant. The
entire occurrence has been recorded on the CCTV Camera. Therefore, a
prima facie case is clearly made out against the petitioner because of which
he is not entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumitha Pradeep
Vs. Arun Kumar C.K. & Anr. 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 held that merely
3 of 5
CRM-M-54463-2022 # 4#
because the 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 application should
consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused.
Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along
4 of 5
CRM-M-54463-2022 # 5#
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.
10. In the present case, the allegations against the petitioner are
serious. He has been duly seen in the CCTV footage along with his co-
accused all of them brutally assaulted the complainant. The injury
attributed to him is a grievous injury with a rod. The recoveries of the motor
cycle and weapon of offence are to be effected from the petitioner.
Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is certainly necessary
to take the investigation to its logical conclusion. Even otherwise, a prima
facie case is clearly established against the petitioner. Therefore, no case
for the grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition and
the same is therefore dismissed.
12. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this
order are only for the purposes of deciding this bail application and Trial
Court is free to proceed with the Trial independent of any observations
made herein.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
January 25, 2023
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
