Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjeet Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 30 January, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-60011-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-60011-2024
Reserved on: 15.01.2025
Pronounced on: 30.01.2025
Gurjeet Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Vikrannt Vij, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, D.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
186 14.09.2024 Lopoke, District 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2),
Amritsar Rural 191(3), 190 of BNS and
25/27/54/59 of Arms Act
1. The petitioners apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above have come up
before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
[BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 6 of the bail petition, the accused declares that they have no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the short reply filed by the State,
which reads as follows:-
"2. That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that aforesaid
FIR No. 186 dated 14.09.2024 was registered on the basis of the
statement of Babbu Singh son of Gurbachan Singh, who had
alleged therein that his cousins Peter Bhatti and Sukhdev Singh
resides in his neighbourhood and Subash son of Peter works in a
private lab at his village and on 13.09.2024, at about 11:50 PM, he
heard noises from the Chowk of his village and he saw that his
cousins Peter and Sukhdev Singh were encircled by Joban Singh
armed with a pistol, Subeg armed with a pistol, Ajay armed with a
datar, Mandeep Singh (petitioner No. 2) armed with a datar, Lucky,
Jaspal Singh, Suba Singh all empty handed, Rahul armed with a
datar, Rakesh (petitioner No. 3) armed with brickbat and Gurjit
Singh (petitioner No. 1) armed with brickbats He further alleged
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-60011-2024
Suba Singh raised a lalkara and Rahul caused injury on the right
leg of Peter with a blow of a datar and Jaspal Masih caused injury
on the head of Peter with a blow of brickbat and Peter fell down on
the ground. He further alleged that in the meantime the co-accused
Ajaypal caused injury on the right arm of Sukhdev Singh with a
blow of a datar and when he tried to rescue his cousins, Joban fired
a shot from his pistol and the bullet hit him on his right thigh and
he fell down on the ground and at the same time Subeg Singh fired
upon him, which hit on the right calf. The detailed facts mentioned
by the complainant in his aforesaid statement has been reproduced
in the true translation of the FIR No. 186 dated 14.09.2024
attached with the petition as Annexure P-1, which may kindly be
read as a part of this paragraph as same are not repeated for the
sake of brevity."
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 short reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the short reply, which
read as follows:
"Role of the petitioners
6. That as per the version of the complainant Babbu, the petitioners
along with the other co-accused after forming an unlawful assembly
in furtherance of their common object attacked upon the him,
Sukhdev and Peter and caused injuries upon them."
7. As per contents of the FIR as mentioned in para no.2 of the short reply, petitioner
No.1 and 3 were stated to be armed with brickbat and petitioner No.2 was armed with
datar, but no injury has been attributed to them. They were only members of unlawful
assembly.
8. The Police did not arrest the petitioners; if they intended to arrest the petitioners,
it was not impossible. A perusal of the reply does not point out the steps taken to arrest
the accused.
9. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but
this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of
anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-
trial incarceration.
10. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie
analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-60011-2024
would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this
stage.
11. The investigation indicates that the petitioners are not the main accused, so the
petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-
accused with a higher role.
12. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
13. Given above, provided the petitioners are not required in any other case, the
petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing
bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then
the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty
Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied
that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
14. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioners 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)
15. The petitioners are directed to join the investigation within seven days of
uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
and as and when called by the Investigator. The petitioners shall be in deemed custody
for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The
petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or
any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as
required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking
cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioners shall not be subjected to
third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
16. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this
case, the petitioners 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
Jyoti Sharma Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-60011-2024
Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.
17. Given the background of allegations against the petitioners, it becomes
paramount to protect 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 firearms. [This
restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability
and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a 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 petitioners shall surrender all weapons,
firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority
within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance.
However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew
and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under
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.
18. 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."
19. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station
arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section
prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above,
then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added
section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding
the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the
Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven
days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
20. It is clarified that if the petitioners violates any bail condition, the State and/or the
victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be
competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioners
moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-60011-2024
21. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioners
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation
of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail.
22. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
23. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioners 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.
24. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
30.01.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
