Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunny Alias Kala Sunny vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-49069-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-49069-2024
Reserved on: 16.10.2024
Pronounced on: 28.10.2024
Sunny @ Kala Sunny ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Imaan Singh Khara, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
96 12.04.2023 Civil Lines, 458, 324, 323, 148, 149 IPC
District Bathinda (Section 459, 326, 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 13 of the bail application, the accused has the following criminal
antecedent:-
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 147 02.06.2023 307, 323, 341, 324/34 IPC Civil Lines,
Bathinda
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the short reply filed by the State,
which reads as follows:-
"4. That the complainant was doing private job at Jalalabad and
he used to come Bathinda to visit his mother. Оп 05.04.2023, the
complainant visited his mother namely Seema.On 10.04.2023, the
complainant and one Ajay were in home, and after having meal,
they were sleeping. At that timethe complainant's mother Seema
and sister Sulaina were not at home, as they were present
atHarpreet Singh's house, situated at Power House Road,
Bathinda. At about 3:30 AM, the complainant heard noises of
entering of some persons, jumping inside the house, crossing over
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-49069-2024
the wall of the complainant's house. The complainant immediately
woke up and from the switched on light of the courtyard, the
complainant saw the accused-petitioner armed with Gandassa, the
accused Kaku armed with sword and the accused Swarn armed
with Kappa, were standing in the courtyard. The complainant woke
Ajay up immediately. Then the complainant asked the reason to the
accused, for entering in his house. On which the accused Swaran
said "We have come for you" and he (the accused Sawan) started
giving repeated blows of his Kappa on the complainant. Then all
the accused gave multiple blows of their respective weapons on the
complainant's right arm. The accused- petitioner gave a blow
towards the complainant which hit on the back of the
complainant's head and the accused Kaku gave blows of his sword
towards the complainant, which hit four times on complainant's
left arm. Thereafter, the accused-petitioner gave blow of his
Gandassa on the ankle of complainant's left leg. The complainant
shouted "Marta-Marta" and Ajay also shouted "Na Maro Na
Maro". Thereafter the accused Kaku gave a blow of handle of his
sword on the back of the complainant's neck. Meanwhile, two
unknown persons, standing in the street, called the accused and
said to stop, upon which the accused-petitioner and the co-
accused fled away from the spot."
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:
"8. That meanwhile, on 11.09.2023, the Investigating Officer
obtained the doctor's opinion regarding nature of injuries suffered
by the complainant, which is as follow:
"As per the relevant record, MLR No.GA/CHBTI/103/2023,
relevant record, MLR Bed head ticket, Adm. No.4891 dt.
11/04/2023 from Civil Hospital, Bathinda and record from AIIMS
Bathinda, CR No. 23/441766 dt. 11/04/23, I am of the opinion that
injury No.4 is Grievous in nature. No Medico legal X-Rays
reporting has been produced before me for injury
No.1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9&10. So no opinion can be given regarding the
nature of injury for injury No.1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9&10."
On the basis of the aforesaid Doctor's opinion, Section 326 IPC was
added, vide DDR No.31 dated 11.09.2023 and due to the aforesaid
grievous injury being inflicted by the accused during night, Section
459 IPC was also added in the case FIR and the DDR No.32 dated
11.09.2023 was entered in this regard."
7. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. There
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-49069-2024
is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime.
However, per paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since
12.03.2024. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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)
11. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
12. 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.
13. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this
case, the petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim
until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded.
This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to
incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to
Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna
Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.
14. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-49069-2024
to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and
incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the
closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict
the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the
preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond
reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction].
Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the
petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the
arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and
inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act,
1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this
case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would
instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the
accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
15. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform
and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT
of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29,
decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that
"The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that
they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The
courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the
necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of
rights and liberties must be eschewed."
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
28.10.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
