Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 October, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-40421-2024
CRM-M-40422-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-40421-2024
Reserved on: 15.10.2024
Pronounced on: 19.10.2024
Satnam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CRM-M-40422-2024
Lakhwinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Ms. Renu Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Jasjit Singh, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
39 09.04.2024 Division-7, District 379, 411 and 34 IPC (Section
Jalandhar 379-B IPC deleted)
1. Vide this common order, CRM-M No.40421 of 2024 and CRM-M No.40422 of
2024 are being disposed of.
2. The petitioner(s) incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail.
3. Per paragraph 11 and 14 of the bail application, the accused have the following
criminal antecedents respectively:-
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 114 21.08.2020 188 IPC and 51 of Disaster Satnampura,
Management Act, 2005 Phagwara
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-40421-2024
CRM-M-40422-2024
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 76 29.05.2022 454, 380, 34 IPC Sadar Jalandhar
2. 123 27.10.2023 379-B, 411, 34 IPC Sadar Nakodar
4. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State in
CRM-M-40421-2024 and the State adopt the same reply even in the other bail petition
i.e. CRM-M-40422-2024, which reads as follows:-
"3. That present FIR No. 39 dated 09.04.2024 U/S 379B, 379,
411, 34 of IPC at Police Station Division No.7, Jalandhar was
registered on the statement of ASI Daljinder Lal and it was
initially registered against Rohit Kumar, Lakhwinder Singh and
Satnam Singh Le. present petitioner (accused Navpreet Singh,
Dishant Sharma, Debu, Shiv Sharma, Vicky and Sunil Kumar@
Rinku were nominated later on) wherein ASI Daljinder Lal
stated that on 09.04.2024, he was present in the area of Garha
Chowk, Jalandhar in relation to police patrolling and he
received secret information that accused Rohit, Lakhwinder @
Mani and Satnam Singh (ie. petitioner) were habitual of
committing thefts and snatching. It was further informed that on
the same day, the above-mentioned three persons were roaming
in the area of Bus- Stand, Jalandhar and were coming towards
PIMS Hospital, Jalandhar on a stolen motorcycle and were
planning to commit the offence of snatching. It was further
reposed that if a picket is laid at an appropriate place, then they
can be apprehended."
5. 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.
6. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read
as follows:
"The petitioner was one of the riders of the motorcycle that was
seized at the spot when the accused were arrested. The ownership
of the motorcycle could not be established. A mobile phone of
make Samsung was recovered from the petitioner at the time of
his arrest whose ownership could not be established. The
inability of the petitioner to establish ownership of the
motorcycle and the mobile phone seized from him proves that the
petitioner and the other co-accused were not the rightful owners
of those articles."
8. The evidence collected so far is sketchy. Even the initial registration of FIR based
on informer's report should have not been done. Given above, the arrest was prima facie
illegal. Based on such illegal arrest, the police recovered two mobile phones and thus
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-40421-2024
CRM-M-40422-2024
tried to justify their initial illegal action. It is strange that how based on informer's report
that petitioners were habitual of committing theft and snatching, they were apprehended
and arraigned them as accused in an FIR which was already registered even when no
recovery had taken place. It is strange that the Sessions Judge had rejected the bail
despite the fact that there is no evidence. If the Session Judges continue to dismiss the
bail in the cases of practically no evidence or such sketchy evidence, it will undoubtedly
burden the High Court with unnecessary bail petitions. Firstly, the petitioner should not
have been arrested and secondly even if they were arrested, it was for the Court who had
sent the petitioners for judicial remand not to do so and further, it was unfortunate for the
Sessions Court to reject the bail applications.
9. As per paragraph 7 of the bail petition(s), the petitioners have been in custody
since 09.04.2024 and the petitioners' total custody in this FIR is 06 months and 01 day.
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 was no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
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
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-40421-2024
CRM-M-40422-2024
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
15. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
16. 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.
17. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
19.10.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
