Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh Alias Goldy vs State Of Punjab on 5 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
1 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 2-
CRM-M-15096-2024
2. Through the instant petition, the petitioners crave for indulgence of
this Court for them being enlarged on regular bail, in case FIR No.352 dated
07.10.2023, under Sections 304, 452, 325, 323, 148, 149 of IPC, registered at
Police Station City Faridkot.
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
3. The case as set up by the prosecution is that the instant FIR was
registered on a statement made by one Baldev Singh, son of Atma Singh, which
became the bedrock for the registration of the instant FIR. Initially the FIR was
registered under Sections 302/34, 148 and 149 IPC, however, on the basis of the
medical opinion, the offence under Section 302 IPC, was deleted, and offence
under Section 304 IPC, was added later on.
4. Even during the trial, the learned trial court concerned, proceeded to
frame charges against the petitioners under Sections 304, 452, 325, 323, 148 and
149 of the IPC.
5. As per the case of the complainant, one accused-Sandeep alias Bony
alongwith 8-10 other persons, caused injuries to Arshdeep Singh, Jashandeep
Singh, Tejinder Singh and Mohit Kakkar and furthermore, Tejinder Singh
succumbed to the injuries, as caused by accused persons in the instant occurrence.
The relevant part of the FIR reads as under:-
"Statement of Baldev Singh son of Atma Singh son of Lakha
Singh, resident of Sadha Wala, now Dream City, Machaki Mal Singh road,
Faridkot, aged about 55 years, 81465-45613 stated that I Mobile No. am resident
of aforesaid address and for the last 4/5 years I have been residing in Dream
City, Faridkot along with my family. I am serving in Police Department 6-IRB
and my duty is in Refinery, Bathinda. I have two children, out of whom
Sukhjinder Singh is my elder son, Tejinder Singh is younger and my daughter is
Sukhpreet Kaur. Both elder children are married and Tejinder Singh is
unmarried. Sukhjinder Singh is doing private job at Chandigarh. Tejinder Singh
is residing with us. In front of my house in the street a bench is lying where
usually ladies and other persons sits. Arshdeep Singh and Jashandeep Singh,
sons of Lakhwinder Singh Sodhi also sits on the said bench. On these boys 05-
10-2023, were sitting on the bench, then Sandeep Singh alias Bony son of
Tarsem, whose house is one house away from our house, had stopped sons of
2 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 3-
CRM-M-15096-2024
Lakhwinder Singh from sitting on the bench Today on 06-10-2023 at about
09.30 P.M., both sons of Lakhwinder Singh were coming on feet, to whom Bony
stopped by calling them and they started quarrelling with each other. My son
Tejinder Singh started intervening to separate them and in this course 08/10
more persons who had come with Bony, started beating them and while I was
witnessing, Lakhwinder Singh and his mother also came running there and Bony
and all these boys inflicted number of injuries on the person of his mother,
Lakhwinder Singh, both sons Arshdeep Singh, Jashandeep Singh, Tejinder
Singh, Mohit Kakkar. All the said persons were holding Kirpans, Kapas and
Baseballs and I raised noise "Don't kill Don't kill" and after having heard my
noise, finding the gathering being attracted to that place, all the accused fled
away from the spot along with their weapons. Due to internal injuries, my son
Tejinder Singh had fallen there and with the help of the residents of the Colony,
he was brought to GGSMC & Hospital where Doctor Sahib declared my son
"Brought dead" and the death of my son has been caused due to beatings given
by Bony and other persons who accompanied him. The reason of the dispute is
that Bony etc. used to stop sons of Lakhwinder Singh from sitting on the bench
lying in front of my house. It is therefore requested that legal action may be
taken against Bony and his 8/10 unknown associates. I have got recorded my
statement to you which I have read, heard and the same is correct. Sd/ Baldev
Singh aforesaid, attested Sd/- Guljinderpal Singh, Station House Officer, Police
Station City Faridkot dated 07-10-2023. Police proceeding: Today undersigned
INSP/SHO along with SI Sukhwinder Singh No. 326/PAP, ASI Gurdit Singh
No. 481/Faridkot, ASI Akalpreet Singh 915/Faridkot, ASI Savinder Singh No.
583/Faridkot, Constable Jaswinder Singh No. 82/Faridkot, PHG Baldhar Singh
32424 while boarded in the Bolero vehicle No. PB-65-BA- 7387 whose driver
was Hawaldar Parampal Singh 307/Faridkot, who were on patrolling for
checking of suspected persons, reached in GGSMC & Hospital Faridkot from
where it was learnt that in the Dream City Colony a quarrel has taken place in
which one boy has died away and other persons had received injuries and I,
Inspector/SHO along with my other associates reached in Emergency GGSMC
Hospital where Doctor Sahib handed over Ruka doctory No. 3206 dated 06-10-
2023 regarding death of Tejinder Singh son of Baldev Singh, resident of Dream
City and father of Tejinder Singh has also met who got recorded his statement
with me and his statement was written and read over and explained to him who
after hearing and admitting the same to be correct, signed below his statement, to
which I attested. From the aforesaid statement and Ruka Doctory, an offence
Under Section 302/34/148/149 IPC I.P.C. is made out. The statement is being
sent to the Police Station through ASI Savinder Singh No. 583/Faridkot for
registration of case. After registration of case, its number may be informed.
Special reports may be issued. I, INSP/SHO along with other police officials is
busy in the investigation. Sd/- Guljinderpal Singh, Station House Officer, Police
Station City Faridkot dated 07-10-2023. Today Emergency GGSMC Hospital
Faridkot AT: 01.20 AM. Today in Police Station: aforesaid statement After
receiving the in Police Station, aforesaid case under aforesaid offences against
aforesaid accused and unknown persons was registered and the case F.I.R. is
being sent through ASI to the INSP on the spot. After preparing Special reports,
the same are sent to Duty Magistrate Sahib and Senior Officers through ASI
Nirmal Singh 264/Faridkot. PCR/FDK is being informed separately through
W/M. Closed Rapat Number 03 dated 07-10-2023 Time: 01.50 Α.Μ."
6. The autopsy of Tejinder Singh was conducted. Thereupon, all three
other injuries were also subjected to the medico-legal examination. Thereafter, the
supplementary statement of Baldev Singh, was recorded, and one of the
3 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 4-
CRM-M-15096-2024
petitioners, i.e. Tarsem Singh, who is the father of main accused-Sandeep Singh
alias Mony was nominated as accused vide DDR No.30, dated 07.10.2023. The
statement of Lakhwinder Singh-injured/eyewitness was also recorded, who also
pointed out his finger towards Tarsem Singh. Vide DDR No.40, offences under
Sections 307, 452 and 323 IPC were also added on 07.10.2023. Further, during
investigation, on the basis of statement of Sandeep Singh alias Mony, a cross-case
has been registered, and five persons were nominated as accused therein, the said
cross-case, after investigation was cancelled by the prosecution agency, and the
cancellation report was prepared on 17.10.2023.
7. Present petitioner-Tarsem Singh and Amandeep Singh alias Goldy
were arrested on 10.10.2023 and 09.10.2023 respectively.
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in his asking for the
hereinabove extracted relief, submits that the petitioners have not been named in
the FIR (supra), and no specific role has been attributed to them at the first instant.
He further submits that their names have been cropped up during the investigation,
and even the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded, which
prima facie casts doubt upon the story of the prosecution, and it seems to be a case
of concoctions.
9. He also submits that there is no connection between the injury
suffered by the deceased-Tejinder Singh, and the cause of his death.
10. He further draws attention of this Court towards the reply, dated
21.05.2024, filed by the prosecution agency to the instant petitions, wherein, it has
mentioned that the cause of death of deceased-Tejinder Singh, is brain
hemorrhage, and there is no evidence of any injury marks on the head of the
4 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 5-
CRM-M-15096-2024
deceased-Tejinder Singh. The relevant extract of the reply reads as under:-
"9. That in a subsequent medical opinion with regard to a specific query
regarding final opinion as to cause of death of deceased Tejinder Singh, the
concerned Surgeon mentioned that it is not possible to give opinion whether
Brain Hemorrhage was due to some disease or Trauma to the head, as per
postmortem record, there was no evidence of any external injury mark on the
head of the person of Tejinder Singh. which indicated that possibility of the
death of Tejinder Singh due to sudden hemorrhage with fear cannot be ruled
out, accordingly the offence u/s 302/307 IPC were not attracting to the facts
of the case and investigation under section 302/307 IPC was dropped and
enhancement of offence u/s 304 IPC made vide DDR No. 25 dated 04-01-
2024. The investigation completed against present petitioner and co-accused
was completed and challan was submitted in the concerned court on Date 05-
01-2024."
11. He in addition submits that as per the post-mortem report, there is
only one abrasion on the right elbow of the deceased, which cannot in any manner
has any nexus with the cause of death of Tejinder Singh.
12. Finally, he submits that the petitioners have suffered incarceration of
about 01 year, as on today, and the trial is at initial stage, as no prosecution
witness has been examined so far.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED STATE COUNSEL AND COUNSEL
FOR THE COMPLAINANT
13. Per contra, the learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for
the complainant, have vociferously opposed the grant of regular bail to the
petitioners, and submit that the petitioners were duly identified during Test
Identification Parade, which was conducted before the magistrate concerned,
therefore, it has the evidentiary value equal to that of recording of statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.
14. They further submit that the injured/eyewitness has categorically
deposed regarding the role of the present petitioners, in as much as, they caused
injuries to the deceased-Tejinder Singh. Therefore, the petitioners being a member
of the unlawful assembly, do not deserve the relief of regular bail.
15. Learned State counsel has filed a custody certificate qua the present
5 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 6-
CRM-M-15096-2024
petitioner-Amandeep Singh alias Goldy, which reflects that he has suffered
incarceration of about 10 months and 23 days, as on today. Whereas, undisputedly
the petitioner-Tarsem Singh, was arrested on dated 10.10.2023, and since then he
is behind bars.
16. Learned State counsel on instructions, imparted to him by the police
official concerned, submits that after framing of the charges on dated 31.08.2024,
against the present petitioners, none of the prosecution witness has been examined
so far.
ANALYSIS
17. Before embarking upon the process of evaluating the arguments
addressed by the learned counsels for the parties and penning down any opinion
upon the instant petition, it is deemed imperative to capture an overview of some
significant legal propositions.
18. "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception". This basic principle of
criminal jurisprudence was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, way back in
1978, in its landmark judgment titled "State of Rajasthan V. Balchand alias
Baliay", 1977 AIR 2447, 1978 SCR (1) 535. This principle finds its roots in one
of the most distinguished fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. Though the underlying objective behind detention of a
person is to ensure easy availability of an accused for trial, without any
inconvenience, however, in case the presence of an accused can be secured
otherwise, then detention is not compulsory.
19. The right to a speedy trial is one of the rights of a detained person.
However, while deciding application for regular bail, the Courts shall also take
into consideration the fundamental precept of criminal jurisprudence, which is
6 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 7-
CRM-M-15096-2024
"the presumption of innocence", besides the gravity of offence(s) involved.
20. In "Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab", (1980) 2 SCC 565
at 586-588, the purpose of granting bail is set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
with great felicity as follows:-
"27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the
right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact
parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting
that as long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of
Calcutta in Nagendra v. King Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476
(479, 480) that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the
accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution
of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether
it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is
indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two
other cases which, significantly, are the 'Meerut Conspiracy cases
observations are to be found regarding the right to bail which
deserve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor, AIR 1931
Allahabad 504 (SB) it was observed, while dealing with Section 498
which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code, that it
conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers
to grant bail which were not handicapped by the restrictions in the
preceding Section 497 which corresponds to the present Section
437. It was observed by the Court that there was no hard and fast
rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the
discretion conferred by Section 498 and that the only principle
which was established was that the discretion should be exercised
judiciously. In Emperor v. H.L. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad
356 at p. 358 it was said that it was very unwise to make an attempt
to lay down any particular rules which bind the High Court, having
regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the
Court unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases
that may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is
dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in
particular classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It
7 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 8-
CRM-M-15096-2024
was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various
sections in the Criminal Procedure Code was that grant of bail is
the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys
freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to
properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably
innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every
opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent
person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his
innocence.
XX XX XX
29. In Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 it
was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that "there
cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The
facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of
judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail".
30. In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para 39) it is
stated :
"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the
court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent,
by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since
the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is
to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction
and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether
a recognizance or bond would effect that end."
It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not
depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the
cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any
one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or
as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail."
21. Also, in "Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others Versus Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh", 1978 AIR (Supreme Court) 429,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, speaking through Krishna Iyer, J., has enunciated the
principles of bail thus :
"9. Thus the legal principle and practice validate the court
8 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 9-
CRM-M-15096-2024
considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with
witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of
justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to
enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to
find whether he has a bad record-particularly a record which
suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In
regard to habitual, it is part of criminological history that a
thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the
opportunity to inflict further crimes on the member of society. Bail
discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a
defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.
10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation
of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the
law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to he
goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19.
Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to
the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness
postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of
freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-
focal interests of justice - to the individual involved and society
affected.
11. We must weight the contrary factors to answer the test the
reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence of the
bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a
better chance to prepare of present his case than one remanded in
custody. And if public justice is to be promoted. mechanical
detention should be demoted. In the United States, which has a
constitutional perspective close to ours, the function of bail is
limited, 'community roots' of the applicant are stressed and, after
the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship
is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in
custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can
arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the
deplorable condition, verging on the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that
the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable
incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a policy
9 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 10-
CRM-M-15096-2024
favouring release justly sensible.
12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of
liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction
along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the
whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but
punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to
redeem the man, even through community service, meditative drill,
study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing
foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating
witnesses or committing offences while on judicially sanctioned
'free enterprise', should be provided against. No seeker of justice
shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus,
conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to
protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation
invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our
Constitution.
13. Viewed from this perspective, we gain a better insight into the
rules of the game. When a person, charged with a grave offence,
has been acquitted at a stage, has the intermediate acquittal
pertinence to a bail plea when the appeal before this Court pends?
Yes, it has. The panic which might prompt the accused to jump
the gauntlet of justice is less, having enjoyed the confidence of
the court's verdict once. Concurrent holdings of guilt have the
opposite effect. Again, the ground for denial of provisional
release becomes weaker when the fact stares us in the face that a
fair finding if that be so - of innocence has been recorded by one
court. It may not be conclusive, for the judgment of acquittal may
be ex facie wrong, the likelihood of desperate reprisal, if
enlarged, may be a deterrent and his own safety may be more in
prison than in the vengeful village where feuds have provoked the
violent offence. It depends. Antecedents of the man and socio-
geographical circumstances have a bearing only from this angle.
Police exaggerations of prospective misconduct of the accused, if
enlarged, must be soberly sized up lest danger of excesses and
injustice creep subtly into the discretionary curial technique. Bad
10 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 11-
CRM-M-15096-2024
record and policy prediction of criminal prospects to invalidate
the bail plea are admissible in principle but shall not stampede the
court into a complacent refusal."
22. This Court has examined the instant petition on the touchstone of the
hereinabove extracted settled legal principle(s) of law and rival submissions made
all the parties concerned, and is of the considered opinion that the instant petition
is amenable for being allowed and the present petitioners deserve to be released on
regular bail.
23. The reason for forming the above inference emanates from the factum
that:- (i) it is not under dispute that the cause of death of deceased-Tejinder Singh,
in the instant case is of brain hemorrhage, and there is no evidence of any external
injury mark on the head of the person of said deceased, and because of this reason,
the prosecution has already proceeded to delete Section 302 IPC, and now the
petitioners are facing trial under Section 304 IPC; (ii) whether, the injury which is
caused by all the accused persons resulted in death of Tejinder Singh, is moot
question, which is required to be adjudicated by the learned trial court concerned,
at an appropriate stage of the trial; (iii) the petitioner-Amandeep Singh has
suffered incarceration of 10 months and 23 days, as on today, and it not under
dispute that the petitioner-Tarsem Singh was arrested on 10.10.2023, and he is
behind bars since then; (iv) the charges were framed against the petitioners on
31.08.2024, however, none of the prosecution witness has been examined till date
by the prosecution, therefore, conclusion of the trial would take a long time.
FINAL ORDER
24. Considering the hereinabove made discussion, this Court deems it fit
and appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners.
11 of 12
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 08:00:19 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116664
CRM-M-14926-2024 & - 12-
CRM-M-15096-2024
Therefore, without commenting upon the merits and circumstances of the present
case, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are 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.
25. However, it is clarified that if in future, the petitioners are found
indulging in commission of similar offences, as are involved herein, the
respondent-State shall be at liberty to make an appropriate application seeking
cancellation of regular bail, as granted by this Court. Moreover, anything
observed here-in-above shall have no effect on the merits of the trial and is meant
for deciding the present petition only.
26. However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no effect on
the merits of the trial, and is only meant for deciding the present petitions.
27. All pending application(s) stand disposed of accordingly.
28. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
September 05, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
12 of 12
