Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Singh Alias Bhujia vs State Of Punjab on 25 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -1- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(212)
1. CRM-M-25346-2023
Sukhchain Singh alias Bhujia ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
2. CRM-M-46055-2023
Manpreet Singh alias Patwari ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
3. CRM-M-23220-2023
Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
Date of decision: - 25.09.2023
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Ishan Gupta, Advocate,
and Ms. Palvi, Advocate for the petitioner.
(in CRM-M-25346-2023 & CRM-M-23220-2023).
Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
(In CRM-M-46055-2023).
Mr. Ferry Sofat, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This order will dispose of three petitions i.e., CRM-
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -2- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
25346-2023 filed by petitioner Sukhchain Singh alias Bhujia; CRM-M-
46055-2023 filed by petitioner Manpreet Singh alias Patwari; and CRM-
M-23220-2022 filed by petitioner Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh
alias Baba.
2. The said three petitions have been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No.81 dated
07.05.2022, registered under Sections 307, 353, 186 and 34 IPC; Section
21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act; and Section
25 of the Arms Act (offence under Section 473 IPC has been added later
on), at Police Station Sadar Faridkot, District Faridkot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sukhchain Singh alias
Bhujia in CRM-M-25346-2023 has submitted that since the said
petitioner is named in the FIR, thus, he seeks to withdraw the present
petition, at this stage.
4. In view of the above-said statement of learned counsel for
the petitioner, the petition bearing CRM-M-25346-2023 is dismissed as
withdrawn, at this stage.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners appearing for accused
Manpreet Singh @ Patwari and Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh
alias Baba have submitted that neither the said two petitioners were
named in the FIR, nor as per the case of the prosecution, were
apprehended at the spot, nor, any recovery of any pistol or any narcotic
drug has been effected from the said two petitioners. It is further
submitted that the said two petitioners have no link with the Etios Car in
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -3- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
which four persons, who have been named in the FIR i.e., Kuldeep Singh
@ Keepa, Sukhchain Singh @ Bhujia, Sukhmander Singh @ Kala and
Sewak Singh were travelling and were apprehended as per the case of the
prosecution. It is stated that in the present case, no injury has been caused
to any person, much less, the police officials and both the said petitioners
are not accused in the RPG attack case that took place in Mohali.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Manpreet Singh
@ Patwari has submitted that a perusal of the order dated 29.08.2023
would show that as per the arguments raised by learned State counsel, the
petitioner was nominated as an accused vide DDR No.44 dated
19.05.2022. A reference has been made to the said DDR No.44 dated
19.05.2022, which has been annexed as Annexure P-3 with the petition
(CRM-M-46055-2023) by learned counsel for the petitioner, in which, it
has been stated that the petitioner had been implicated on the basis of
disclosure statement of one Nishan Singh and from a perusal of which, it
is clear that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he was
involved with respect to the recovery of 1 KG Heroin, which had been
effected from the four persons, who had been apprehended at the spot. It
is further stated that the only allegation against the petitioner is that the
said Nishan Singh used to call up the present petitioner, Kuldeep Singh
and Charat Singh for supplying arms. It is submitted that although, in the
said statement emphasis was made on Charat Singh supplying the arms,
but subsequently, it has been mentioned that as per the disclosure
statement of Nishan Singh, petitioner along with Charat Singh and
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -4- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
Kuldeep Singh used to supply arms. It is, thus, submitted that the highest
case against the petitioner would attract offences under Sections 25 & 27
of the Arms Act, regarding which also there is no recovery of any firearm
from the petitioner. It is further contended that even the offences under
Sections 307, 353 and 186 IPC, either stand alone, or with the aid of
Section 34 IPC, are not made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as, it is
not the case of the prosecution that there was any prior
conspiracy/common intention to attack the police party and in fact, as per
the FIR, the police apprehended four persons, who have been named in
the FIR, when they were patrolling in order to check suspicious persons
and thus, the incident took place at the spur of the moment. It is further
submitted that there is no material other than the disclosure statement of
the co-accused, which in itself is not sufficient to convict the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Gurjinder Singh alias
Gurinder Singh alias Baba has referred to page 32 of the challan
(Annexure P-8), annexed with CRM-M-23220-2023, as per which, the
alleged involvement of the petitioner has been mentioned at two places
i.e., one at page 42 and another is at page 47. It is submitted that as per
page 42 of the paper-book, which contains relevant portion of the challan,
a reference has been made to the statement of Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa,
recorded on 09.05.2022, as per which, he had purchased 7 pistols 32 bore
country made with magazines at the rate of Rs.28000/- per pistol from
Manawat area of District Indore, Madhya Pradesh, which, as per him, had
been purchased from the present petitioner and an amount of Rs.1.50 lakh
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -5- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
were sent by Sahib through some person and the remaining amount of
Rs.46000/- was deposited in the bank account of the present petitioner
and a call was made by generating a foreign whatsapp number + 44 from
mobile of Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa. It is submitted that on the basis of the
said information, the petitioner was not nominated as an accused and
neither there is recovery of any pistol/arms from the petitioner-Gurjinder
Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba, nor there are any bank details
attached along with the report under 173 Cr.P.C. to show the deposit of an
amount of Rs.46,000/- allegedly deposited by Sahib in the Bank account
of the petitioner, nor the said person Sahib, had been made an accused,
nor any call details have been made a part of the report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as per the relevant portion of challan at page
47 of the paper-book, the petitioner had been nominated as an accused on
the basis of statement of Manpreet Singh @ Patwari and regarding the
same, DDR No.22 dated 29.05.2022 has been entered and as per the said
statement of Manpreet Singh @ Patwari (petitioner in CRM-M-46055-
2023), it had been stated by Manpreet Singh @ Patwari that the petitioner
had supplied him first two pistols .32 bore and then, 4 pistols @
Rs.30000/- per pistol. It is stated that other than the said disclosure
statement, there is no material even remotely linking the petitioner-
Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba with the supply of
pistols. It is, thus, submitted that the highest case against the petitioner
attracts offence under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, regarding which
there is no recovery of any firearm from the petitioner. It is contended that
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -6- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
even the offences under Sections 307, 353 and 186 IPC, either stand
alone, or with the aid of Section 34 IPC, are not made out against the
petitioner, inasmuch as, it is not the case of the prosecution that there was
any prior conspiracy/common intention to attack the police party and in
fact, as per the FIR, the police had apprehended four persons, who have
been named in the FIR, when they were patrolling in order to check
suspicious persons and thus, the incident took place at the spur of the
moment.
8. Learned counsel for both the petitioners have further brought
to the notice of this Court that co-accused of the petitioners had filed
petitions raising the plea of false implication in the present case and the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.11.2022, passed in
CRM-M-31707-2022, issued notice of motion on the plea of false
implication and had directed the trial Court to adjourn the case beyond the
date fixed by the Court. It is stated that the petitioner Manpreet Singh @
Patwari is in custody since 25.05.2022 and petitioner Gurjinder Singh
alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba is in custody since 06.06.2022 and there
are 37 witnesses, none of whom have been examined, thus, the trial is
likely to take long time. It is further stated that all the witnesses are
official witnesses and thus, the question of the petitioners influencing
them does not arise.
9. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the
present petition for grant of regular bail and has submitted that as per the
version given in the FIR, the police party were in a Government Vehicle
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -7- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
for checking and patrolling the suspicious persons and activities of
gangsters and at about 7.30 p.m. it was found that from the side of village
Bhana, one car was seen coming and ASI Jasveer Singh, signalled the
said car to stop by flashing a torch light, then, the car occupants instead of
stopping the car, tried to run away from the spot and thereafter, Inspector-
Harbans Singh, who is complainant in the FIR, along with other officers,
who were standing on blockade No.2 parked the Government vehicle in
between the road, but the accused persons, while trying to escape
smashed their car against the Acacia trees and the ignition of their car
went off and thereafter, the occupants of the car fired 2-2 shots with an
intention to kill and the police party in order to save themselves, fired 2
shots in the air from their service rifles and then, the car occupants tried
to escape from the spot after opening doors of the car, but all the four
persons were apprehended from the Etios car. The said four persons are
Sewak Singh, Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa, Sukhchain Singh alias Bhujia and
Sukhmander Singh @ Kala and the recovery of four pistols along with
seven live cartridges, two pellets and 1kg of heroin was effected from
them. It is also submitted that the offence committed by the accused
persons was heinous and during interrogation, Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa
who was apprehended at the spot, named Nishan Singh as one of the
accused and on the basis of the said statement of Nishan Singh, petitioner
Manpreet Singh @ Patwari was nominated as an accused, vide DDR
No.44 dated 09.05.2022, as per which, it is the said petitioner along with
other accused who had supplied arms to the co-accused. It is submitted
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -8- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
that on the basis of the disclosure statement made by Manpreet Singh @
Patwari, petitioner Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba was
nominated as an accused, vide DDR No.22 dated 29.05.2022 from which
it came about that the said Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias
Baba had also supplied arms. It is further stated that both the petitioners
are involved in several other cases and thus, do not deserve the
concession of bail. The other facts, as highlighted by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, have however not been been disputed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner Manpreet Singh @
Patwari, in rebuttal, has submitted that in all the cases, the petitioner has
either been acquitted or discharged or is on bail, whereas, learned counsel
for the petitioner Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba, in
rebuttal, has submitted that the petitioner is in custody in one case and has
been granted bail in the other cases. In support of their arguments, learned
counsel for both the petitioners have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and
another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and
circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail
application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected
solely on the ground that the petitioners are involved in other cases. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the
role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -9- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court etc."
11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
gone through the paper-book.
12. Petitioner Manpreet Singh @ Patwari is in custody since
25.05.2022 and petitioner Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias
Baba is in custody since 06.06.2022 and the investigation is complete and
the challan has been presented and there are 37 prosecution witnesses,
none of whom have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take
time. All the witnesses are official witnesses and thus, the question of the
petitioners influencing them does not arise. It is not disputed that both the
petitioners were not named in the FIR and were not apprehended at the
spot, nor any recovery of any pistol or any narcotic drug has been effected
from the present petitioners. Petitioners are not connected with the Etios
car, in which, the four named accused persons were travelling at the time
of the incident. No injury has been inflicted on any person, much less, the
police officials in the present case. Both the petitioners are not stated to
be accused in the RPG attack case that took place in Mohali. The
argument of learned counsel for both the petitioners to the effect that the
question of there being any conspiracy so as to invoke offences under
Section 307, 353 and 186 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC does not
arise as they were neither at the spot nor as per the case of the prosecution
there was any prior conspiracy/common intention for attacking the police
as the entire incident took place at the spur of moment, cannot be
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -10- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
outrightly rejected. The said argument would be considered during the
course of trial and this Court does not wish to give any final opinion on
the said aspect. Petitioner Manpreet Singh has been nominated in the
present case as an accused on the basis of DDR No.44 dated 19.05.2022
and even as per the said DDR, co-accused Nishan Singh had made a
disclosure statement that he used to communicate telephonically with the
present petitioner, Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa and Charat Singh for
supply of arms and the petitioner-Manpreet Singh @ Patwari was
nominated as an accused on account of the disclosure statement of said
Nishan Singh alleging that the petitioner, Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa and
Charat Singh used to supply arms and wanted to cause loss of life to Billa
Sheron and Harry Harike. It is not in dispute that no recovery of firearm
has been effected from the said petitioner nor there are any phone call
details attached along with the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, much
less, between Nishan Singh and the said petitioner. Petitioner-Gurjinder
Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba has been nominated as an accused
vide DDR No.22 dated 29.05.2022, on the basis of the statement of
Manpreet Singh @ Patwari in which the allegation against the petitioner-
Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba is that he had firstly
supplied him two pistols .32 bore and then, 4 pistols @ Rs.30000/- per
pistol. There is no recovery of any pistol from the said petitioner-
Gurjinder Singh alias Gurinder Singh alias Baba. The question as to
whether the disclosure statements of the co-accused implicating the
petitioners would be sufficient to convict the petitioners in the present
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-25346-2023; -11- 2023:PHHC:126250
CRM-M-46055-2023 &
CRM-M-23220-2023;
case, would be finally considered during the course of trial.
13. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances
as well as in view of the law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi's case (supra), the present petitions i.e., CRM-M-23220-2023 &
CRM-M-46055-2023 are allowed and both the petitioners are ordered to
be released on bail on their furnishing bail / surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to
them not being required in any other case.
14. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the observations made in the present order
which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petitions.
15. It is made clear that in case, the petitioners indulge in any
criminal activity in future and any act is done by them to threaten or
influence the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be open
to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the
petitioners.
16. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
September 25, 2023 ( VIKAS BAHL )
naresh.k JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:126250
11 of 11
