Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Gill vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2024
2024:PHHC:049542
CRM-M-21331-2023 -1-
222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-21331-2023
Date of Decision: 10.04.2024
Jatinder Gill ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madan Senior D.A.G, Punjab.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner (Jatinder Gill) 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.09, dated 09.01.2018, under Sections 302,
201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police
Station Division No.5, Ludhiana.
2. Custody certificate dated 09.04.2024 of the petitioner has been
filed by learned State counsel in Court today, which is taken on record,
subject to all just exceptions.
3. Briefly, the aforesaid case FIR was registered on the basis of the
complaint made by one Jasvir Singh, stating therin, that on 30.12.2017, at
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049542
about 05:00 A.M., his son Gurpreet Singh left the house to meet someone in
Patiala and when he did not return till evening, at around 04:30 P.M.,
Paramjit (daughter of the complainant) called Gurpreet Singh on his mobile
phone, but it was responding as switched off. Next day on 31.12.2017, the
complainant tried to call his son- Gurpreet Singh many a times but, the
position remained the same. Thereafter, on 01.01.2018, a missing report was
lodged by uncle of the complainant- Jagir Singh in the Police Station Hathur.
On 06.01.2018, Harman s/o Kewal Singh, came to the house of complainant
and told him that he went to Ludhiana on 30.12.2017, where he talked to
Gurpreet Singh-son of the complainant on phone and Gurpreet Singh told
him that he is at the bus stand of Ludhiana, where one Lovedish, resident of
Mohru, District Jalandhar and one Gill, resident of Lambda, District
Jalandhar are coming to collect some photographs of some one from him. It
is further averred by the complainant that even after searching, the
whereabouts of his son was not known. Complainant has suspicion that both
the above said persons may have killed his son-Gurpreet Singh and
destroyed his dead body. Accordingly, the aforesaid FIR was registered.
4. On 19.09.2023, the following order was passed by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court:
Short reply by way of affidavit of Jasroop Kaur Batth
(IPS) ACP, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, District Police
Commissionerate Ludhiana filed on behalf of respondent-State
and the same is taken on record. Copy thereof supplied to the
opposite side. Para 5 of the affidavit reads as under:-
"v. That thereupon an autopsy on the mortal human
remains of the deceased was conducted and during the
same, samples were withdrawn from the recovered human
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049542
bones for DNA sampling. Additionally, the clothes found
immersed in blood were forwarded to the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. The FSL
report dated 07.02.2018, indicated that the recovered
clothes containing blood stains and soil with blood traces
were confirmed to be human blood. It is pertinent to
mention herewith that Forensic DNA test result on the
forwarded samples was inconclusive as no DNA could be
isolated from the forwarded Bone Sample and the Hair
Sample."
In view of above, learned State counsel seeks time to have
instructions regarding the DNA report.
Posted on 18.10.2023.
As petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more
than 5 years; therefore, till the next date of hearing, he is
ordered to be released on interim bail on his furnishing bail
bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court/Duty/Magistrate concerned.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated
19.09.2023, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner has
already been granted the concession of interim bail on his furnishing bail
bonds and surety bonds. It is submitted that the petitioner has already
undergone actual custody period of 5 years and 8 months till 23.09.2023, the
date on which he was released from custody and since then, he has been
regularly appearing before the trial Court on each and every date. It is
further submitted that there are total 30 prosecution witnesses, however, only
10 witnesses have been examined till date. Hence, the conclusion of trial is
likely to take some time. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions as may be
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049542
imposed by this Court or by the trial Court. Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner is also willing to furnish security in the form of Fixed
Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) before the concerned Court, so as to ensure his
presence before the Court on each and every date of hearing and prays that
order dated 19.09.2023, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,
granting the interim bail to the petitioner may be confirmed.
6. Leaned State counsel has opposed the plea of the petitioner for
grant of regular bail on the ground of seriousness and gravity of the offence,
however, he concedes the factum of granting of interim bail to the petitioner
vide order dated 19.09.2023, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is not
disputed that the petitioner has been appearing before the trial Court on each
and every date of hearing and till date only 10 witnesses have been
examined out of total 30 prosecution witnesses. However, learned State
counsel states that since serious and grave charges are alleged against the
petitioner, hence there is every probability that he may influence the
witnesses and delay the trial, considering the fact that almost 20 witnesses
are yet to be examined, 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 as well as custody certificate dated 09.04.2024.
8. In the instant case, the petitioner was in custody since
26.01.2018 and till the time he was released on interim bail i.e. on
23.09.2023, the petitioner had undergone custody for 5 years 8 months.
Further, till date only 10 witnesses out of total 30 prosecution witnesses have
been examined, therefore, this Court has reason to believe that the trial is
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049542
likely to take some time to conclude.
9. So far as the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel
that the petitioner may influence the witnesses or may even 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 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. Since the petitioner is regularly appearing before the trial Court
on each and every date, the present petition is allowed and the ad-interim
order dated 19.03.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is made
absolute. The petitioner shall continue to appear before the trial Court on
each and every date unless specifically exempted on a particular date. In
order to ensure presence of the petitioner before trial Court during trial, the
petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare a Fixed Deposit Receipt
(F.D.R.) in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and submit the same with the trial Court.
The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law, in case the petitioner
remains absent from trial without any sufficient cause.
11. The petitioner shall also inform the concerned Station House
Officer about his address at which he intends to reside during the pendency
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049542
of case/trial and any change in the address shall be communicated to the
concerned Station House Officer, forthwith. The petitioner would also
furnish his telephone number to the concerned Station House Officer. He
would also furnish his undertaking to the effect that he will not indulge in
any illegal activity. The petitioner shall also appear before the concerned
Police Station/Station House Officer on first Monday of every month till the
conclusion of trial.
12. 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.
13. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
14. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
10.04.2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
Himani JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this document/judgment
