Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032585
CRM-M-12089-2025 -1-
229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12089-2025
DECIDED ON: 07.03.2025
GURPREET SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Sylvester Stephen , Advocate
for the petitioner. (through Hybrid Mode).
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the 2nd time
under Section 483 of of BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in the case of F.I.R No. 155 dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) under
Sections 115(2), 109, 132, 221, 190, 191(3), 304, 61(2) of BNS, 2023 and
Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Section 135-A of Representation of
People Act added in challan and Section 25/27-54-59 Arms Act, 1959 has
been deleted in challan) registered at Police Station Baghapurana, District
Moga.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032585
"Statement of Ct. Karamdeep Singh No. 5/210/IRB
Headquarter Mall Mandi Amritsar son of Mehnga Singh son of
Harbans Lal resident of House No. B-1262 Bhayian Wali Gali
Simbal Batala District Gurdaspur age around 30 years mobile:
79738-70581. I state that I am resident of the aforementioned
address on date 23.11.2016 I was enrolled in police Commando
as a Constable. On date 13.10.2024 I was deployed on election
duty at Moga on 14.10.2024 I was deployed for patrolling in the
villages Rajeiana, Kola Mehar Singh Wala, Budh Singh Wala,
Chanu Wala etc of of Bagha Purana Sub Division. In this
patrolling party ASI Narinder Singh No. 2722/PAP, Sr. Ct
Kamaldeep Singh No. 727/Moga were accompanying me. The
in-charge of our patrolling party was Inspector Harjit Kaur. For
patrolling a private vehicle was allotted to us. On date
15.10.2024 when our patrolling party was present at village
Budh Singh Wala government Elementary School at that time
the gate of the school was closed. I was outside the gate. It was
around 12:45 AM dated 16.10.2024. The employees deployed
on election duty, after finishing their duty they started boarding
the bus. Then a person inside the school, Gurpreet Singh s/ o
Darshan Singh r/o Budh Singh Wala who had lost the village
Sarpanch election and another person accompanying him was
Gurpreet Singh s/o Joginder Singh r/o Budh Singh Wala, then
Gurpreet Singh s/o Darshan Singh I/o Budh Singh Wala who
had lost the village Sarpanch election both of them in
connivance with each other made a phone call to their group of
60- 65 persons standing outside the gate and incited them to
make a rucks in front of the bus so that we can get the elections
cancelled by hooliganism. The group of 60-65 persons standing
outside, immediately on received a phone call started
sloganeering, they were in possession of fire arms also. I asked
them to refrain from such hooliganism. The employees closed
the gate from inside. I started to make these unidentified people
to understand then all the unidentified persons started
misbehaving with me. Then I quickly threw my AR-47 rifle
inside the school premises. I shouted loudly to save my rifle and
in a bid to save myself I ran away from there. Then an
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032585
unidentified person caught hold of me and with an intention to
kill me started beating me. He attacked me on my right bicep,
head, eye and my back-side. I started shouting loudly, in the
meantime I heard sound from inside the school premises of gun
shots. Then the unidentified persons, swiftly tore my uniform,
snatched my wallet from my pocket and challenged me and ran
away from the site of incidence. My wallet was containing
around an amount of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand),
Identity card, Aadhar card and ATM card. I was shouting
loudly. Then the police party appeared at site of incidence
which included Inspector Harjit Kaur also. They took me to
Garg Hospital Bagha Purana and got me admitted there. I am
undergoing medical treatment there. The cause of enmity is that
Gurpreet Singh etc. had lost the village Sarpanch elections.
They wanted to stop the bus of polling station employees,
misappropriate the votes from this bus and to get the elections
cancelled. I stopped them from doing this. Then with an
intention to kill me they beat me. They created hurdles in my
official duty. They tore my uniform and snatched my wallet. I
legal action be taken against all of these persons."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the instant FIR
was got registered against the petitioner out of political vendetta. He further
contends that no specific role or injury has been attributed to the petitioner,
who has been roped in the instant FIR due to his association with a political
party during the Sarpanch election. The attention of this Court has been drawn
to an order dated 17.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed in CRM-M-7627-2025
vide which co-accused namely Gurpreet Singh has already been granted the
concession of bail.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032585
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is a
habitual offender, as he is involved in other cases.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 04 months
and 16 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; the instant FIR
was got registered against the petitioner due to political vendetta and co-
accused has already been granted the concession of bail added with the fact
that investigation is complete, challan stands presented to Court on
14.01.2025, charges are yet to be framed and total 15 prosecution witnesses
are yet to be examined, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the
conclusion of trial will take long time for which the petitioner cannot be
detained behind the bars for an indefinite period.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a
general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an
exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is
the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a
person is believed to be innocent until found guilty.
However, there are instances in our criminal law where a
reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to
some specific offences but that is another matter and does
not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of
other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032585
jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule
and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction
home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an
exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles
appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more
and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer
periods. This does not do any good to our criminal
jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is
entirely the discretion of the judge considering a case but
even so, the exercise of judicial discretion has been
circumscribed by a large number of decisions rendered by
this Court and by every High Court in the country. Yet,
occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether
denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do
on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best
opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence
witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it
necessary to arrest an accused person during
investigations, a strong case should be made out for
placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet
is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the
accused was participating in the investigations to the
satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not
absconding or not appearing when required by the
investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding
from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some
genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be
a factor that a judge would need to consider in an
appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to
consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032585
been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the
deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely
important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it
by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting
section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be
adopted by a judge, while dealing with an application for
remanding a suspect or an accused person to police
custody or judicial custody. There are several reasons for
this including maintaining the dignity of an accused
person, howsoever poor that person might be, the
requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact
that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to
social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In
Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR
(Criminal) 416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has
been elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision
delivered in Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India,
2017 (13) SCALE 609 going back to the days of the Magna
Carta. In that decision, reference was made to Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 in which
it is observed that it was held way back in Nagendra v.
King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is not to be
withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to
Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it
was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the
exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and
the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost
a century old, going back to colonial days.
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032585
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail
should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of
bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing
the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must
be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and
compassionately. Also, conditions for the grant of bail
ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance,
thereby making the grant of bail illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic
and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused
as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this,
reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period of the under-trials
should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the
severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the
petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of
this Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias
Rock vs. State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the
time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be
looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of
evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:032585
evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other
pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail
on account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would
lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
5. Relief:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
07.03.2025 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
