Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Singh Alias Ranjha vs State Of Punajb on 4 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046085
2024:PHHC:046085
CRM-M-9397-2024 -1-
234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-9397-2024
Date of Decision: 04.04.2024
Sandeep Singh @ Ranjha ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner (Sandeep Singh @ Ranjha) has filed the present
petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.130, dated
19.08.2023, under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 27
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was added
later on), registered at Police Station Dyalpura, District Bathinda, Punjab
(Annexure P-1).
2. Succinctly, the abovesaid case FIR has been registered on the
basis of the statement of one Satpal Singh @ Satti (complainant), wherein it
is alleged that on 18.08.2023, at around 10:00 P.M., son of the complainant
namely Iqbal Singh @ Guggu was taken by the petitioner and other
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046085
2024:PHHC:046085
co-accused persons namely Buta Khan, Tarsem Singh Sema @ Jograj, Bhem
Singh @ Bhema Singh, Baljit Singh @ Gagga, Lovepreet Singh @ Labbi
Singh and Nikka from the house of the complainant and on 19.08.2023 at
around 4:00 A.M., Iqbal Singh @ Guggu (son of the complainant) was left at
his home by the present petitioner (Sandeep Singh @ Ranjha) in an
unconscious state and marks of injection were found on the arms of Iqbal
Singh @ Guggu (son of the complainant). Thereafter, when doctor came and
checked Iqbal Singh (son of the complainant) he was found dead. It is
alleged by the complainant that the accused persons gave narcotic injections
to his son-Iqbal Singh @ Guggu. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR was
registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner never
instigated Iqbal Singh to consume the intoxicant substance. It is further
submitted that co-accused, namely Bhem Singh @ Bhema Singh and Tarsem
Singh Sema @ Jograj have already been granted the concession of
anticipatory bail in this case by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide
separate judgments dated 11.01.2024 and 15.01.2024 (Annexures P-4 and P-
5) passed in CRM-M-48913-2023 and CRM-M-45751-2023, respectively. It
is further submitted that other co-accused, namely Baljit Singh @ Gagga,
Lovepreet Singh @ Labbi Singh and Buta Khan have already been granted
the concession of regular bail in this case by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, vide separate judgments dated 22.11.2023, 05.01.2024 and
10.01.2024 (Annexures P-6, P-7 and P-3) passed in CRM-M-57803-2023,
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046085
2024:PHHC:046085
CRM-M-62754-2023 and CRM-M-58996-2023 respectively. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that one co-accused, namely Omerdeen
Khan @ Umar has also been granted the concession of regular bail by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide order dated 11.10.2023
(Annexure P-8). It is also submitted that the petitioner is similarly
circumstanced in this case as other co-accused, who have already been
granted the concession of bail. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is
not involved in any other case. It is contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail
before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda has been wrongly
declined vide order dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure P-2).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
in custody since 19.08.2023; challan stands presented and even charges have
been framed on 22.02.2024. Hence, the conclusion of trial is likely to take
long time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner
behind bars. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the
conditions as may be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court,
accordingly prayer for grant of regular bail is made.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. Japjot Singh, AAG, Punjab, who is present in the Court,
accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State and opposes the plea of
petitioner for grant of regular bail by submitting that the petitioner was the
person, who had left Iqbal Singh (son of the complainant) at his home in an
unconscious state, however, it is not disputed by learned State counsel that
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046085
2024:PHHC:046085
challan stands presented, charges have been framed on 22.02.2024 and also
that the petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2023 in this case. It is also not
disputed by learned State counsel that the other co-accused namely Buta
Khan, Tarsem Singh Sema @ Jograj, Bhem Singh @ Bhema Singh, Baljit
Singh @ Gagga, Lovepreet Singh @ Labbi Singh and Omerdeen Khan @
Umar have already been granted the concession of bail. Learned State
counsel further states that there is an apprehension that in the event of bail,
the petitioner may abscond to delay the fair trial. Accordingly, prayer has
been made for dismissal of the present petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper book.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner is in custody for a period of
more than seven months, challan stands presented; and charges have been
framed on 22.02.2024, therefore, trial in this case is likely to take some time
to conclude and other co-accused have already been granted the concession
of bail.
9. So far as the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel
that the petitioner may abscond in order to delay the trial, suffice it to state
that in the event of any such conduct, the prosecution can always approach
the competent Court for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, it is observed that
the State/Prosecuting Agency/State police shall be at liberty to observe the
behaviour of the petitioner during the bail period, and in case it feels that the
petitioner is indulging in influencing any of the witnesses or tampering with
the prosecution evidence in any manner or otherwise causing interference
with the progress of trial, it shall be open for the State/Prosecuting
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046085
2024:PHHC:046085
Agency/State police to move to the trial Court for cancellation of the bail,
which shall be decided by the trial Court on merits.
10. In view of the above discussion, present petition is allowed and
the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
11. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed to be an
observation on merits of the case and the facts and circumstances recorded
above are only for consideration of the prayer for bail at this stage.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
13. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
04.04.2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
Himani JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
