Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053421
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
2024:PHHC:053421
211 CRM-M-11709-2019 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 16.04.2024
CHARANJIT SINGH SHARMA
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
****
Present: Mr. R.S. Rai,Sr. Advocatewith
Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate,
Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate,
Mr. Rehan Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. Gagandeep Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasdeep Singh Gill, Addl. AG, Punjab.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has
been invoked seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 130,
dated 21.10.2015 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC
(Offence under Sections 201, 218 and 120-B IPC added later on) and
Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (under Sections 166-A, 194, 195
and 109 added vide order dated 10.03.2021) registered at Police Station
Bajakhana, Ditrict Faridkot.
2. The contents of the FIR reads as under:-
Summary of Case F.I.R. No. 130 dated 21.10.2015. U/s. 302,
307, 34 IPC, 25/27/54/59 Arms Act - Police Station
Bajakhana, District Faridkot:- "From Director, Bureau of
Investigation-Cum-Chairman, Special Investigation Team,
Punjab, Chandigarh. To The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Faridkot. No. 318/PA/DIR/BOI Dated: Chandigarh,
the 21.10.2015. Subject: Regarding registration of F.I.R. in
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053421
CRM-M-11709-2019 (O&M) -2-
connection with firing incident took place at village Behbal,
Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot. 1. Kindly pay
your kind attention to the subject cited above. 2. The
Director General of Police, Punjab issued order No.
1306/Crime-E-3 dated 14.10.2015, on which, F.I.R. dated
12.10.2015 - Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot
registered for committing disrespect to Sri Guru Granth
Sahib Ji and hurting the religious sentiments of people. A
Special Committee, comprising of Investiaation following
officers, formed for investigation of said case: i) Sh. Iqbal
Preet Singh Sahota, IPS, Director, Bureau of Investigation,
Punjab (Chairman): ii) Sh. Amar Singh Chahal,
I.P.S.,D.I.G., Ferozepur Range, Ferozepur (Member) ; iii)
Sh. R.S. Khatra, IPS, D.I.G. Bathinda Range, Bathinda
(Member). 3. The Special Investigation Team arrived at
Faridkot on 16.10.2015 and | conducted investigation. The
circumstances regarding Police firing at village Behbal
examined and relevant record gone through. 4. It is revealed
by Special Investigation Team that two persons, namely
Krishan Bhagwan Singh son of Mohinder Singh & Gurjit
Singh son of Sadhu Singh had died during Police firing. The
said Police party was deputed under observation of Sh.
Charanjit Singh, S.S.P., Moga. It reveals from Post- mortem
report of said deceased persons that they received gunshot.
It also transpired from examination of circumstances that
some people are of the opinion that a murder case may be
registered in this matter and further investigation may be
conducted. Hence the case requires to be deeply
investigated. As such, you are hereby directed that an F.I.R.
Us.302, 307, 34 IPC, 25, 27, 54, 59 Arms Act be registered
and thorough investigation be conducted for bringing actual
facts to notice,so that due legal action may be taken against
accused and justice may be provided. Special Investigation
Team will supervise investigation in this case. Sd/- Iqbal
Preet Singh Sahota, Director, Bureau of investigation- Cum-
Chairman, Special Investigation Team, Punjab, Chandigarh.
S.H.O., Police Station Bajakhana, for necessary action. Sd/-
Sukhminder Singh Maan, Senior Superintendent of Police,
Faridkot. Dated: 21.10.2015. Today at Police Station: On
receipt of above noted letter, the above said case under
above mentioned offence is registered against above given
accused. A copy of F.I.R. alongwith original letter is
retained by me, S.I./S.H.O. for conducting further
investigation. Special reports are being sent to Ld. Illaga
Magistrate and senior officers through H.C. Harbhagwan
Singh 847. Intimation to Police Control Room is being sent
separately. Entered vide DDR No.29 at 9.20 P.M.
3. Mr. R.S. Rai, learned SeniorCounsel for the petitioner has
contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053421
CRM-M-11709-2019 (O&M) -3-
further contended that on 07.09.2015 order was passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Faridkot, imposing restriction under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
from 08.09.2015 till 15.11.2015. It is submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that on the direction of Sh. Paramraj Singh Umranangal IPS,
the then Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, he reached Bargadi where an
incident of sacrilege took place and miscreants, armed with lethal
weapons has surrounded the police post situated at Bargadi. It is further
submitted that the protesters, who were in large number, had attacked the
police personnels, who were on duty and also damaged the police
vehicles and several police officials were also injured. Thereafter an FIR
No. 129, dated 14.10.2015, under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act and
Sections 3/4 of Prevention of damage to Public Property Act, was also
got registered. The assertion is that the State government appointed
Inquiry Commission headed by Justice Jora Singh (Retired), to inquire
into the incident of sacrilege and police firing on 14.10.2015 in
Kotkapura and village Behbal Kalan, who gave his report on 30.06.2016
and in the report given by the afore-said Commission, no role was
attributed to the present petitioner. Moreover, in the affidavit dated
15.02.2019 submitted by Satinder Singh, SSP, before this Court, no
direct role has been attributed to the present petitioner in the alleged
occurrence in fact, Inspector Pardeep Singh along with HC Gurnam
Singh had taken escort Gypsy of the present petitioner to a house at
Faridkot-Kotkapura road, where two gun shots were fired on the said
Gypsy for fabricating the evidence and in the said affidavit, it is clearly
mentioned that Beant Singh got recorded his statement, in which, he has
named Bikramjit Singh on whose asking SI Amarjit Singh fired upon
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053421
CRM-M-11709-2019 (O&M) -4-
Krishan Bhagwan Singh, meaning thereby, no direct role has been
attributed to the present petitioner in the entire occurrence.
4. Learned Senior Counsel points out that the co-accused
Bikramjit Singh, Amarjit Singh and Pardeep Singh, to whom direct role
has been attributed, have already been granted the concession of pre-
arrest bail by this Court. He argues that from the police file, it is
crystallised that protesters had gathered there in spite of promulgation
under Section 144 Cr.P.C., which itself is an illegal act and thereafter,
occurrence took place due to attack made on the police personnel, who
were performing their duties. Further argument is that Beant Singh, who
had given specific role to the petitioner, now had got recorded his
statement before the earlier Commission of the inquiry and in his those
statements, he has not named the present petitioner as accused and had
also not attributed any direct role to the petitioner.
5 It is also asserted that the petitioner is suffering from serious
ailment and is undergoing treatment from Hero Heart of DMCH,
Ludhiana and HOD Dr. Wander has suggested open heart surgery. On
medical ground the petitioner has already been granted the concession of
interim bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2019, which was
subsequently extended for one month by this Court vide order dated
16.07.2019 and is continuing till today. Mr. Rai, Sr. Advocate lays much
stress to the fact that the petitioner has never mis-used the concession of
interim bail granted to him on medical ground by this Court and
moreover, nothing is to be recovered from petitioner and investigation
shall take sufficient time to conclude, no useful purpose will be served by
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053421
CRM-M-11709-2019 (O&M) -5-
keeping the petitioner in custody for an indefinite period. Hence, the
present petition be allowed and petitioner be released on regular bail.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
prayer made in the present petition urging that the demonstrators were
holding a peaceful Dharna on the link road and neither of them was
armed with any fire arm or lethal weapons. Rather, in the morning of
13/14.10.2015, between 04:00 a.m. - 07:00 a.m. the demonstrators had
scattered on the main Kotakpura-Bragari Road to protest against the
sacrilege of Holy Shri Guru Granth Sahib and the demonstrators moved
to the pointed place i.e. link road at T-Point, Behbal Kalan. Till this time
there was no violence from any side and the demonstrators were holding
peaceful Dharna chanting religious prayers and distributing Langar which
was also partaken by the police officials present there.
7. The argument of learned State counsel is that the situation
took an ugly turn when the Petitioner and his reader Inspector Pardeep
Singh along with other police personal reached the spot and started
abusing the peaceful demonstrators. It is further argued that Inspector
Pardeep Singh slapped and gave kick blows to the peaceful protesters due
to which the situation got tense infuriating the peaceful demonstrators at
which on the orders/command of the present petitioner Charanjit Singh
Sharma (as per the 1st Challan) police resorted to unprovoked firing
resulting in the death of two demonstrators namely Krishan Bhagwan and
Gurjit Singh. It is argued by the State that in fact, the petitioner and his
reader Inspector Pardeep Singh were the aggressors due to which the
peaceful dharna turned into a violent demonstration and certain police
personal along-with demonstrators were also injured and the public
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053421
CRM-M-11709-2019 (O&M) -6-
property was also damaged. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the present
petition submitting that the petitioner was the aggressor due to which the
situation got tense infuriating the peaceful demonstrators at which on the
orders of the present petitioner police resorted to unprovoked firing
resulting in the death of two demonstrators namely Krishan Bhagwan and
Gurjit Singh.
8. No other argument has been raised by either of the parties.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, this
Court is of the view that the duty of the State is to maintain law and order
and it is highly impossible to believe that the protestors who were
hundreds in number and gathered at a particular place would not create
any ruckus or chaos, disturbing law and order. In the case in hand, police
personnels were injured and public property was also damaged. This
Court is not oblivious of the fact that to bring such a situation under
control, the police had to step in and act to dispense the mob.
10. This Court cannot ignore that the order under Section 144
Cr.P.C. was in force at the site as well. As on date, nothing incriminating
material has been brought to the notice of this Court against the petitioner
and nothing is to be recovered from him at this stage. Moreover, the
petitioner is cooling his heels from the date of his arrest i.e. 27.01.2019
and it is a matter of evidence that which party was the aggressor.
11. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and
considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner, who is
behind bars since 27.01.2019 and also looking into the medical condition,
who is suffering from heart disease added with the facts that challan
stands presented and trial is at the initial stage of prosecution evidence
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053421
CRM-M-11709-2019 (O&M) -7-
meaning thereby, the conclusion of trial shall take considerable time and
as such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner
behind the bars for an indefinite period. Moreover, the principle of "bail
is the rule" and jail is an exception" is resonated again and again in
several dictums of the Supreme Court in "State of Rajasthan versus
Balchand @ Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447, wherein it was held that the basic
rule is bail, not jail, except-where there are circumstances suggestive of
fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other
troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and
the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court.
When considering the question of bail, the gravity of the offence
involved and the heinousness of the crime which are likely to induce the
petitioner to avoid the course of justice must weigh with the court. In the
instant case the circumstances and the social milieu do not militate
against the petitioner being granted bail on monetary suretyship at this
stage. At the same time any possibility of the abscondence or evasion or
other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will
report himself before the police station once every fortnight. He was on
bail throughout the trial but was released after the judgment of the High
Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in
him by the court. He is not it desperate character or an unsocial element
who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place on him to
turn up to take justice at the hands of the court.
12. Further reliance can be placed upon the dictum of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569
wherein it is held that the concept of speedy trial is an essential part of
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053421
CRM-M-11709-2019 (O&M) -8-
Article 21 of our Constitution. In which it was also said that right to
speedy trial begins with the arrest of the accused and consequent
incarceration and continues at all the stages of investigation, enquiry,
trial, appeal and revision so that prejudice caused by the impermissible
and avoidable delay can be averted.
13. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
14. In the afore-said terms the present petition is allowed.
15. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove,
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
16. Pending Criminal Misc. applications, if any shall also
disposed off.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
16.04.2024 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
