Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdeep Singh @ Monu vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-39574-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39574-2024
Reserved on: 01.03.2025
Pronounced on: 18.03.2025
Sukhdeep Singh @ Monu ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. B.S. Jattana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
0108 09.06.2024 Bhikhi, District 307, 341, 323, 148, 149,
Mansa 120-B, 427 IPC
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before
this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS],
seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Per paragraph 13 of the bail application, the accused has the following criminal
antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 5/2022 - 336 IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act Khamanon
2. 0016 30.03.2024 22 of NDPS Act Morinda
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which
reads as follows:
"Statement of Jagsir Sigh son of Gurpayar Singh son of Chand Singh
resident of Bir Khurd, aged about 38 years, mobile no.94177-xxxxx.
Stated that I am resident of above said address and doing agricultural
work. We are two brothers and five sisters who all are married.
Yesterday on 08.06.2024, at about 01:30 PM in the noon I was
watering small plants (Paud) of paddy at motor at Barmi Wala fields.
Then my younger brother Jaswant Singh alongwith Maninder Singh
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-39574-2024
son of Jagsir Singh of our village were returning to village on our
motorcycle Bullet bearing No.PB-31R-4911 after finishing domestic
work. When my brother Jaswant Singh reached in front of our fields
then while I was seeing, from the side of Bhikhi one Bolero vehicle of
White colour in which there were 8-9 persons came and badly hit the
Bolero vehicle behind the motorcycle of my brother Jaswant Singh,
both of them fell down from the motorcycle. Maninder Singh was
driving the motorcycle and my brother was sitting behind.
Immediately 8-9 persons armed with Gandasas, swards, rod and
sticks came from the Bolero vehicle, who attacked upon my brother
Jaswant Singh and Maninder Singh with their weapons to inflict
injuries upon them. Maninder Singh ran towards right side of road
and my brother Jaswant Singh ran towards our motor. 3-4 persons
chased Maninder Singh who have inflicted injuries to Maninder Singh
and 4-5 persons chased my brother. My brother Jaswant Singh
alarmed killed-killed, they have encircled my brother Jaswant Singh
from all the sides by stopping Bolero in front of him. Out of them
Gora @ Kirch son of Bhola Singh resident of Bir Khurd armed with
Gandasa, Gursewak Singh son of Nachatar Singh resident of Bir
Khurd armed with sword, Kaka Singh Kheriwala resident of Dhaipai
armed with Gandasa, Jugnu Singh son of Sawraj Sing, Laddi Singh
son of Bittu Singh residents of Bir Khurd armed with sticks and
Gurpreet Singh son of Beri son of Gurtej Singh resident of Bhikhi
armed with iron rod in connivance with each other encircled my
brother Jaswant Singh from all sides and in the cultivated fields with
intention to kill inflicted injuries on his head, forehead and back side
of head, on both the legs and arms with their respective weapons. I
have also alarmed killed- killed then above mentioned accused fled
away from the spot by sitting in Bolero vehicle alongwith their
respective weapons towards Bhikhi. Then I have send massage to
village and called our relatives and after arrangement of vehicle got
my brother Jaswant Singh and Maninder Singh admitted in
Government Hospital, Mansa. My brother Jaswant Singh due to
seriousness and suffering of more injuries referred and we have
arranged ambulance and got my brother Jaswant Singh admitted in
DMC, Ludhiana, where my brother is unconscious. Today his
operation is being conducted. Our motorcycle make Bullet has also
been damaged. Motive is that approximately 7-8 years ago, my
brother Jaswant Singh had a fight with Gursewak Singh son of
Nachatar Singh etc. in the ground of our village, due to that grudge
above mentioned accused Gora Singh and Kaka Singh Kheriwala,
Jugnu Singh, Laddi Singh, Gursewak Singh, Gurpreet Singh Beri and
3-4 unknown persons have inflicted injuries to my brother Jaswant
Singh and Maninder Singh. Legal action may kindly be taken against
them and after registration of case justice be provided to us. Sd/-
Jagsir Singh above."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions
including surrender of fire arms, if any.
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-39574-2024
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read
as follows:
"On 16.07.2024, statement of injured Jaswant Singh was recorded by
the IO. In the statement Jaswant Singh had mentioned similar facts to
that of the statement got recorded by complainant Jagsir Singh.
However, injured Jaswant Singh had specifically named the names of
03 unknown accused persons to be Petitioner Sukhdeep Singh @
Monu, Lovepreet Sharma @ Labhi son of Heera Singh, both residents
of Bareta, District Mansa and Munshi Singh resident of Talwandi
Sabo, District Bathinda. On which, above named accused persons
namely Petitioner Sukhdeep Singh @ Monu, Lovepreet Sharma @
Labhi and Munshi Singh were nominated as accused in the present
FIR, vide DDR No.32, Dated 16.07.2024. It is further submitted that
as per the statement of injured Jaswant Singh injury No.1 to 3 was
found to be inflicted by accused Jugnu Singh, Injury No.4 & 5 were
inflicted by Haracharnjit Singh @ Gora, apart from injury No.4 & 5
accused Harcharanjit Singh @ Gora had also inflicted the blow of
his armed gandasi on his head with the intention to kill him, one blow
of which landed in the middle portion of his head and another blow
landed on his forehead, Injury No.6 to 11 were inflicted by Gursewak
Singh, Injury No.12 to 16 were inflicted by Gurpreet Singh @ Thori,
Injury No. 17 to 19 were inflicted by Prem Singh @ Laadi and Injury
No. 20 & 21 were inflicted by Maninder Singh @ Munshi. Copy of
MLR report of injured Jaswant Singh is Annexure R-1 and copy of
Radiodiagnosis report is Annexure R-2."
REASONING:
7. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the following
portion of status report dated 10.12.2024 filed by State counsel, which reads as
follows:-
"Thereafter serial wise from Sr. no.1 to 10, as per list prepared, the
ten persons were produced before victim Jaswant Singh and
Jaswant Singh duly identified the accused Lovepreet Sharma @
Labhi in the court but he failed to identify the accused Sukhdeep
Singh @ Monu who stood at Sr. no.8 in the queue. So in this regard
statement of Jaswant Singh has also been recorded in which he
stated that ten persons were produced before him for identification
and out of which, he identified accused Lovepreet Sharma @ Labhi
and accused Sukhdeep Singh @ Monu was not present in these ten
persons."
8. Given the stand of the complainant in not identifying the petitioner and that no
grievous injury was attributed to him, it is not a case for custodial interrogation or pre-
trial incarceration.
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
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-39574-2024
anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-
trial incarceration.
10. The Police did not arrest the petitioner; if they intended to arrest the petitioner, it
was not impossible.
11. 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
would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this
stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
12. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on anticipatory 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.
13. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner 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)
14. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
15. The petitioner is 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 petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-39574-2024
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
Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna
Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.
17. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount
to protect the victim, 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 petitioner 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.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-39574-2024
20. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation
of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
22. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner 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.
23. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
18.03.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
