Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ageveer Singh Alias Judhveer Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 September, 2024
CRM-M-32115-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.217
Case No. : CRM-M-32115-2024
Decided On : September 09, 2024
Ageveer Singh @ Judhveer Singh .... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr. Charnjit Singh Bahia, Advocate
and Mr. Sumeet Singh Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Avneet, AAG, Punjab.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.63 dated 03.08.2023, under
Sections 307, 324, 326, 382, 353, 148, 149 IPC, 1860, registered at Police
Station Nandgarh, District Bathinda.
2. The FIR in question was registered on the statement of Head
Constable Kikkar Singh, wherein he stated that he used to perform
temporary duty in Excise Department in Circle Ghudda in connection with
patrolling on the private vehicles of the liquor contractors on the liquor
vends lying in the area of Circle Ghudda. On 02.08.2023, he along with
ASI Jatinder Singh and some private officials of the liquor contractors, was
going to Village Nandgarh from Ghudda office while patrolling. When their
vehicle reached about 2 kilometers ahead of Village Ghudda, one white-
coloured Swift car, without any number plate was found on the road near
Kali Mata temple. Five young persons (two of them were wearing turban
and three with cropped hair) were beating a motorcycle rider, who was
having parcels of Amazon company. Upon seeing their vehicle, all the
young persons immediately fled away from the spot in their car. The
motorcycle rider namely Sukhvir Singh s/o Ranjit Singh r/o Naruana told
them that above said young persons had snatched his purse having 3-4
thousand rupees, while beating him. On this, the complainant party
followed the above said young persons in the vehicle of liquor contractor.
While following, when they reached on the link road of Village Dhunike,
about 2 kilometers ahead of Village Kaaljharani, then the above said young
persons immediately stopped their car on the road and the complainant party
made efforts to apprehend them but they attacked them with the deadly
weapons by getting off from the car. One young person with turban gave the
direct blow of kirpan on complainant's head with clear intention of killing
him but he raised his right arm for saving himself, which kirpan blow hit on
the palm of his right hand. Then all the above said assailants fled away from
the spot along with their weapons and the car. About them, the complainant
got to know later that they were Jodha Singh, Agayveer Singh, Bughi Singh,
Harjinder Singh and Kuljit Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case. There was only one injury on the right
hand of the complainant Kikkar Singh, which has been attributed to the
petitioner. However, the police has implicated five accused in this case,
which clearly shows the intention of police for implicating everyone without
even knowing their role in the occurrence. It has also been submitted that
Section 307 IPC has been added in the present case without any injury
attracting Section 307 IPC. The injury was also on the non-vital party of
body of the victim. It has been further contended the petitioner is in custody
since 03.08.2023 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time.
Challan has already been presented in the case. The other co-accused
namely Harjinder Singh @ Bhundi, Jodha Singh and Kuljit Singh, alleged to
be involved in the occurrence, have already been granted bail by Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide orders dated 04.03.2024, 10.04.2024 and
15.02.2024 respectively. Therefore, the case of the petitioner be also
considered on parity and he be granted concession of regular bail.
4. Status Report by way of affidavit of Heena Gupta, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division (Rural), District Bathinda, has been
filed, which is ordered to be taken on record.
5. Learned State counsel, while referring to the Status Report, has
submitted that in view of the nature of the allegations levelled against the
petitioner, he is not entitled for concession of bail. He was a member of
unlawful assembly and has attacked poor delivery boy of Amazon doing his
duty. Not only this, the group including the petitioner, also attacked the
police party. Regarding parity, it was submitted that the case of the
petitioner in not on parity with the other co-accused as it was the petitioner
only, who had inflicted kirpan blow to the complainant, who was a police
official on duty. Moreover, as per report of the doctor concerned, the injury
was grievous in nature. He has, however, fairly submitted that the challan in
the case has been presented before the Court concerned and other co-accused
have been granted bail by this Court.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and have also perused the paper-book.
7. No doubt, as per allegations, the petitioner was a member of
unlawful assembly. They not only caused beatings to a poor delivery boy
and snatched his money, but also attacked the police official on duty.
However, the injury attributed to the petitioner is on the non-vital part on the
body of the complainant. The culpability of the petitioner and his co-
accused would be decided during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the
petitioner is in custody since 03.08.2023 and the trial of the present case is
not likely to be concluded in near future. No useful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for a long time.
8. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case,
the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on
regular bail, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of
learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall also
abide by the following conditions :-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender his
passport and shall not leave the country without
the prior permission of the Trial Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall give his mobile
number to the Trial Court and get the same
registered, on which SMS shall be received from
the CIS and shall not change his mobile number
during pendency of the case.
(iii) The petitioner shall not change his
residence without prior intimation to the
concerned Police Station and the Trial Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the
Trial Court on each and every date of hearing.
9. The Trial Court is at liberty to impose any other condition that
it may deem appropriate. It is further clarified that in case of default of any
of the conditions, the concerned Court is competent to cancel the bail
granted to the petitioner.
10. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to
be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The observations
recorded above are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail petition.
11. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
September 09, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
