Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjinder Singh Alias Kala Sekhon vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062434
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
I. CRM-M-31558-2023
2024:PHHC:062434
MANJINDER SINGH @ KALA SEKHON
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . . . Respondent
****
II. CRM-M-16001-2023
2024:PHHC: 062648
GURINDERPAL SINGH @ GORA BHAU
. . . . Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . . . Respondent
Reserved on: 03.05.2024
Pronounced on : 06.05.2024
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
****
Present: - Mr. R.S. Sangha, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-31558-2023).
Mr. Amaninder Preet, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-16001-2023)
Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
In the two petitions tilted above, both filed under Section 439
CrPC, petitioners pray for their release on regular bail in cross case bearing
DDR N:71 dated 23.06.2021 registered under Sections 307/ 160/ 148/ 149/ 120-
B IPC and Sections 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station City Kotkapura, in FIR
No.135 dated 22.06.2021 registered under Sections 307/ 201/511/160 IPC and
Sections 25/27 of Arms Act at Police Station City Kotkapura.
2. Separate status reports in both the cases have been filed.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-31558-2023 2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-16001-2023 2024:PHHC:062648
3.1 As per the prosecution version, on 22.06.2021, local police of
Police Station City Kotkapura received information about a cross firing having
taken place at about 11:00 AM at Jalaleana Road, Rishi Nagar, Kotkapura
between Ravel Singh @ Ravila travelling in his Innova Car No.PB-05W-1893
on one side; and unknown persons who had come in their car No.DL-7CG-1918
from the other said and that one person was lying injured at the spot having
suffered bullet injury. On the basis of this information, FIR No.135 (supra) was
registered against unknown persons. Spot was inspected. Empty cartridges of
different weapons, vehicles, blood smeared earth showing number of rounds,
were seized. On the basis of the driving license recovered from the pocket of
the pants of the injured person, his name was found to be Deepak Kumar, who
was brought dead at Civil Hospital Kotkapura and so, the case was converted to
Sector 302 IPC. During inspection of the dead body, 7 live cartridges of 9 mm
were recovered from the pants of the deceased.
3.2 On 23.06.2021, Yashpal Singh son of Ram Kishan approached the
police and identified the dead body to be of Krishan . son of Ram Kishan.
Autopsy was conducted. During further investigation, Ravel Singh @ Ravila
was apprehended on 23.06.2021, who in his statement disclosed that on
22.06.2021, as he was coming after meeting his friend, a Corolla car came from
the opposite side besides a motorcycle, which were occupied by Krishan Pal
(deceased) son of Ram Kishan, Nitish @ Pardhan, Golu, Bachi, Manpreet
Singh and 3-4 unknown persons, all of whom started firing indiscriminately
towards him with an intention to kill him. He (Ravel Singh @ Ravila) stopped
his car and fired two shots upon the assailants with his .32 bore illegal pistol in
his defence. He also stated that Krishan Pal was coming towards him very fast
and opened the door of his car and then ran towards the backside to save him,
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-31558-2023 2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-16001-2023 2024:PHHC:062648
but the assailants even fired at their own companion i.e. Kishan Pal. He also
stated that while running, magazine of his illegal weapon had fallen down, and
that he had fled from the spot. On the basis of this version of Ravel Singh @
Ravila, cross case vide DDR No.71 (supra) was registered against Krishan Pal
(deceased) son of Ram Kishan, Nitish @ Pardhan, Golu, Bachi, Manpreet
Singh, Gurinderpal Singh @ Gora Bhau and Goldy Brar.
3.3 During further investigation, names of Sukhwinder Singh @ Tang
@ Sunny, Harpreet Singh @ Bhau and Manjinder Singh @ Kala Sekhon, also
emerged. All of them were apprehended from time to time.
4.1 On behalf of Manjinder Singh @ Kala Sekhon (petitioner in
CRM-M-31558-2023), it is contended that he has been implicated on the basis
of disclosure statement of co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Manna, as per which
said Manpreet Singh @ Manna had handed over two 9 MM pistols to him
(petitioner). Ld. counsel contends that Manpreet Singh @ Manna has been
arrayed as an accused on the allegation that he had arranged Corolla car for the
assailants and that said Manpreet Singh @ Manna, so as to falsely implicate the
petitioner, has suffered disclosure statement with a concocted story to have
supplied pistols to the petitioner.
4.2 Ld. counsel contends further that petitioner was not present at the
scene of incident; that no specific overt act is attributed to him; that he was
arrested on 20.01.2022 on the basis of production warrant though he was
already in custody in different case since 29.06.2021; that there is no legally
admissible incriminating material against him; that after the completion of
investigation, report qua him has already been filed; that co-accused Navjot
Singh has already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2023;
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-31558-2023 2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-16001-2023 2024:PHHC:062648
that there are 48 witnesses cited by the prosecution and so, trial is likely to take
long time to conclude.
4.3 Petitioner has also given details of 8 cases, in which he is involved,
out of which he is on bail in four of the cases and have been convicted in four
other cases. He submits that in one of the cases, he has been convicted under
Section 42 of the Prisons Act, in which he has already completed his sentence;
whereas, in three other cases, in which he has been convicted, his sentence has
been suspended and his appeals are pending.
4.4 Ld. counsel contends further that pendency of the other criminal
cases cannot be a ground to deny bail. Ld. counsel has referred to judgments of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. state of UP (2020)
11 SCC 648 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of UT, (2012) 3 SCC
382 and judgments of this High Court rendered in CRM-M-16587-2022 titled
as Vipul Vs. State of Haryana decided on 27.04.2022 and CRM-M-1203-2014
titled as Ramesh Vs. State of Haryana decided on 14.03.2014.
5.1 On behalf of Gurinderpal Singh @ Gora Bhau (petitioner in
CRM-M-16001-2023), it is contended by ld. counsel that petitioner was not
present at the spot; that no overt act is attributed to him; that he has been
nominated on the statement of Ravel Singh @ Ravila and then he was brought
on production warrants. Ld. counsel contends further that the only role
attributed to the petitioner is that he and Goldy Brar had threatened Ravel Singh
@ Ravila to refrain from running gambling business.
5.2 The petitioner has also given details of 12 cases, in which he is
involved and submits that in most of the cases, he was not named in the FIR nor
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-31558-2023 2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-16001-2023 2024:PHHC:062648
any recovery was effected from him. Contenting that trial may take time to
conclude, prayer is made for grant of regular bail.
6. Apart from above, counsel for the petitioners have also placed on
record copy of the statement of PW2-Ravel Singh @ Ravila, made during trial,
in which though he proved the incident, but failed to establish identity of any of
the accused. He specifically denied to have told the police that Gurinderpal
Singh @ Gora Bhau (petitioner in CRM-M-16001-2023) or Goldy Brar had
conspired with the other accused or had arranged to kill him (Ravel Singh @
Ravila). So much so, this witness denied to have told the police that he had
named Manpreet Singh, Nitish @ Pardhan, Krishan Pal Golu and Bachi to
have fired upon him on the abetment or conspiracy with Gurinderpal Singh @
Gora Bhau and Goldy Brar.
7. Ld. State counsel has opposed both the petitions by drawing
attention towards the criminal antecedents of both the petitioners and that both
of them are members of the gangs and also pointing out towards the gravity of
offence. Prayer is made for rejecting the petitions.
8. I have considered submissions of both the side and have appraised
the record.
9. It is no doubt true that both the petitioners are involved in
numerous other cases, as is evident from their respective custody certificates
and petitioner-Manjinder Singh @ Kala Sekhon has even been convicted in six
of the cases, but at the same time, the Court is required to see the role of the
petitioners in the present case, in which they are seeking the bail, as per
observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tewari Vs. state
of UP (supra) and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra).
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-31558-2023 2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-16001-2023 2024:PHHC:062648
10. It was observed in Prabhakar Tewari's case, as under:
"The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal
cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis
for refusal of prayer for bail. The High Court has exercised its discretion in granting
bail to the accused."
11. In Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra, it was observed as
under:-.
"It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second respondent is a sitting Member of
Parliament facing several criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the
cases ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. 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 other
circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court
etc."
12. In present case, it is the conceded by the prosecution that none of
the petitioners were present at the spot of the crime. The name of Manjinder
Singh @ Kala Sekhon (petitioner in CRM-M-31558-2023) has surfaced on the
basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Manna to the
effect that he (Manpreet Singh @ Manna) had handed over two pistols to the
petitioner, so as to kill Ravel Singh @ Ravila; whereas, the role of
Gurinderpal Singh @ Gora Bhau (petitioner in CRM-M-16001-2023) is
confined to have conspired with Goldy Brar and abetted the assailants, who
went to the spot so as to kill Ravel Singh @ Ravila.
13. The status report is silent as to whether any recovery of weapon
was effected from Manjinder Singh @ Kala Sekhon (petitioner in CRM-M-
31558-2023) or whether any weapon, recovered during investigation, was
found to have been handed over by the petitioner (Manjinder Singh @ Kala
Sekhon) to the co-accused or used in the crime. Ravel Singh @ Ravila, on
whose statement, the DDR No.71 (supra) was registered and in which
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-31558-2023 2024:PHHC:062434
CRM-M-16001-2023 2024:PHHC:062648
petitioners are seeking bail, has not supported the prosecution version during
trial. He has denied the role of Gurinderpal Singh @ Gora Bhau (petitioner in
CRM-M-16001-2023) in any manner. Both the petitioners are in custody.
Manjinder Singh @ Kala Sekhon (petitioner in CRM-M-31558-2023) is in
custody since 20.01.2022; whereas Gurinderpal Singh @ Gora Bhau (petitioner
in CRM-M-16001-2023) is in custody since 26.07.2021. Having regard to the
long list of prosecution witnesses, trial is likely to take long time to conclude.
14. Considering all the facts and circumstances as noted above, but
without commenting anything further on merits of the case, both the petitions
are allowed. Petitioners are admitted to regular bail on their furnishing requisite
bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate concerned, by observing usual terms and conditions.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected
case.
(DEEPAK GUPTA)
06.05.2024 JUDGE
Vivek
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes
Whether reportable? No
7 of 7
