Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh Alias Gopi vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-42806-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42806-2024
Reserved on: 08.11.2024
Pronounced on: 14.11.2024
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Surinder Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Swati Batra, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
101 31.10.2023 Sadar Kapurthala, 302, 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC
District Kapurthala and 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms
Act (Section 201 IPC added
later on)
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking
regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 22 of the bail application, the accused has the following criminal
antecedents:-
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 56 23.04.2019 307, 336, 148, 149 IPC and 25 Sadar, Kapurthala
of Arms Act
2. 120 30.10.2019 307, 323, 324, 451, 427, 336, Lohian, Jalandhar
506, 148, 149 IPC and 25, 54,
59 of Arms Act
3. 83 03.07.2022 399, 402 IPC and 25, 27, 54, 59 Lohian, Jalandhar
of Arms Act
4. 138 20.12.2023 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act Sadar, District
Moga
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:-
"4. That complainant has stated that on 30.10.2023 at about
07:30 p.m. complainant Tarsem Chand alongwith his son
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-42806-2024
Vijay Kumar @ Cheeku and Ranjit Singh were standing near
park of the village where his son Vijay Kumar received a
telephonic call of Rajvir Singh who warned him to be strong as
he is coming to see him. At the same timethe complainant also
received a phone call from Raj Kumar who threatened him
that they will not spare his son Vijay Kumar. After hearing
this, complainant and others started moving towards their
house.
5. That complainant has further stated that Lovepreet
Singh armed with Pistol, Ashok Kumar armed with pistol,
Rajvir Singh armed with Datar, Deepak Gill @ Deepuarmed
with Datar, Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa armed with Datar, Raj
Kumar @ Raja alongwith five/six unidentified persons came
there on some motorcycles and a Scorpio car bearing no.PB-
29-W-5100 of white colour. Lovepreet Singh fired direct shots
from his pistol with intent to kill his(complainant)son which
hit on abdomen of his son and he fell down on the ground."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read
as follows:-
"17. That there are specific allegations against the petitioner
and co-accused in committing murder of deceased in well
planned manner and petitioner actively participated in the
occurrence, it is pertinent to mention here that petitioner was
nominated in the present FIR on the basis of disclosure statement
of co-accused accused Lovepreet, Ashok Kumar, Deepak Gill,
accused Harman Singh and petitioner was rightly nominated in
present case, moreover on the basis of disclosure statement of
petitioner, accused Sucha Singh and Mangal Singh were
nominated in the present case which testifies the involvement of
petitioner in occurrence of present case thus present petition is
liable to be dismissed.
18. That there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner as
petitioner has been nominated as accused in the present case on
the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused Lovepreet, Ashok
Kumar, Harman Singh which testifies the presence of petitioner
at place of occurrence hence petitioner is not entitled for relief of
bail thus present petition is liable to be dismissed."
7. The status report filed by the police reveals that the investigator arraigned the
petitioner as an accused based on the disclosure statement of the main accused. No other
evidence is collected at this stage to connect the petitioner with the main accused. Thus,
there is no justification to deny bail.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-42806-2024
8. Per paragraph 16 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since
04.01.2024. Per the custody certificate Annexure R-1, the petitioner's total custody in this
FIR is 09 months and 18 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial
custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other
factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial
incarceration at this stage.
9. The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the
petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-
accused with a higher role.
10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest
Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the
following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
13. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
14. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
15. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of
this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-42806-2024
16. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
17. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
18. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
14.11.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
