Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 3 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114446
CRA-S-2718-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
108 CRA-S-2718-2024
Date of Decision : September 03, 2024
RANDHIR SINGH -APPELLANT
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, D.A.G., Punjab.
Ms. Neha Randhawa, Advocate for
Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Advocate
for the complainant.
***
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)
1. On oral request of the learned counsel for the appellant, offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC/ST
Act'), as became incorporated in the present FIR during the course of
investigation, is ordered to be read as a part of the offences, whereunder, the
appellant is claiming the relief of regular bail.
2. Registry is directed to carry out the requisite corrections at all
the relevant places in the present appeal.
3. Through the instant appeal, the appellant prays for setting aside
the order dated 29.07.2024, whereby, the learned Judge concerned has
declined to grant him regular bail, in case FIR No.141 dated 18.11.2023,
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114446
under Sections 306 of the IPC (Section 305 of the IPC, and, Sections 3(2)(v)
and 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act added subsequently), registered at P.S. Dirba,
District Sangrur. Moreover, the appellant also prays for granting him the
relief of regular bail in the present FIR.
4. As a matter of fact, earlier the appellant had, when the present
FIR embodied offence only under Section 306 of the IPC, approached this
Court, through filing CRM-M-690-2024, thereby seeking the relief of
regular bail. During pendency of the said petition, the appellant (petitioner
therein) was granted interim bail by this Court, in the light of the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mohit Singhal and anr. Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and ors." [Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023]. The
interim bail order passed by this Court on 07.02.2024 is annexed as
Annexure A-4.
5. Thereafter, for the purpose of final disposal of the regular bail
petition (supra), this Court, vide order dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure A-5),
directed the appellant (petitioner therein) to surrender before the learned
trial Court concerned and the said directions were complied with by him.
However, on account of the supervening events, i.e. incorporation of
offence under Section 305 of the IPC and Section 3(2) of the SC/ST Act in
the present FIR, the regular bail petition (supra) was dismissed by this Court
vide order dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure A-6) and the appellant (petitioner
therein) was relegated to the learned trial Court concerned, for seeking the
relief of regular bail under the newly incorporated offences.
6. Accordingly, the appellant accessed the learned trial Court
concerned for grant of regular bail, however, his request was declined by
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114446
the latter vide order dated 29.07.2024. This declining order has caused pain
to the appellant and coaxed him to institute the present appeal thereagainst.
7. The genesis of the present FIR is embodied in a statement made
by one Jagsir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant').
Succinctly stated, the allegations levelled in the present FIR are that, on
16.11.2023, consequent upon a child becoming hit by complainant's son's
scooter, many persons gathered at the spot, out of whom, one person gave
5-6 slaps to complainant's son. The complainant's son felt humiliated on
account of him becoming slapped in front of general public and resultantly,
he committed suicide on 17.11.2023, by leaving a suicide note.
Subsequently, the complainant made enquiry and came to know that it was
the appellant, who had slapped his son.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant, in his beseeching the
reliefs embodied in paragraph No.3 of this order, submits that, even if the
allegations levelled in the present FIR are taken on their face value, yet no
offence under Section 306 of the IPC is made out against the appellant, as
the ingredients of abetment are completely lacking. Moreover, no offence
even under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act is made out against the
appellant, as there is no allegation that the appellant was aware about the
caste of the complainant's son (since deceased).
9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that,
appellant's co-accused (i) Prince Cheema has been granted the concession
of anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 07.02.2024, drawn upon
CRM-M-3615-2024; and (ii) Gagan Sharma has been granted the
concession of interim bail by this Court, vide order dated 21.12.2023, drawn
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114446
upon CRM-M-64480-2023.
10. Per contra, the learned State counsel, who is assisted by the
learned counsel for the complainant, has vociferously opposed the grant of
regular bail to the appellant, on the ground that, the allegations levelled
against the appellant are grave in nature.
11. The learned State counsel has also filed reply, on affidavit of
Prithvi Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Dirba,
and, custody certificate of the appellant, which are taken on record.
12. This Court has heard the arguments advanced by the learned
counsels for the contesting litigants and also made a studied survey of the
record. For the reasons assigned hereinafter, this Court deems it appropriate
to grant the reliefs yearned by the appellant.
13. Prima facie, the appellant has been roped in the present FIR
merely on the statement of complainant, wherein, the latter has stated that
he had come to know from someone that the appellant had given slaps to his
son, which resulted in him committing suicide. This Court is of the opinion
that "whether the allegations levelled by the complainant fulfill the
ingredients of abetment, as adumbrated in Section 107 of the IPC, or not"
is a moot question, which requires its becoming adjudicated by the learned
trial Court concerned, after appreciation of evidence, as becomes adduced
before it by the parties.
14. Moreover, a perusal of the appellant's custody certificate
reflects that, till 02.09.2024, he has undergone incarceration of 04 months
and 09 days and he is not involved in any other criminal case.
15. In summa, without commenting upon the merits and
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114446
circumstances of the present case, the instant appeal is allowed. The
impugned order dated 29.07.2024 is set aside, and, the appellant is ordered
to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bond and surety bond to the
satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty
Magistrate.
16. However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect
on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present appeal only.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
September 03, 2024 JUDGE
devinder
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
