Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurkamalpreet Singh Alias Kamal vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-401-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-401-2025
Reserved on: 06.03.2025
Pronounced on: 18.03.2025
Gurkamalpreet Singh @ Kamal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Ankit Joshi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
50 22.07.2024 Sandaur, District Malerkotla 109(1), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2),
191(3), 190, 61(2)(a) of BNS
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court
under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular
bail.
2. In paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:
"3. That pursuant to the said order, it is respectfully submitted
that the brief factual matrix pertaining to the present case are
that On 21th July 2024, an information was received from the
Civil Hospital, Malerkotla regarding the admission of Jaswinder
Singh and Gurdhaian Singh sons of Avtar Singh, resident of
Village Kalyan, due to injuries and it was further informed that
the injured(s) have been referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala.
Whereupon, on 22.07.2024, A.S.L. Harjinder Singh
No.1366/SGR of Police Station Sandaur along with co-officials
visited the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and obtained the opinion
of doctor regarding the fitness of injured(s) Jaswinder Singh and
Gurdhian Singh to give statement and the doctor declared the
injured(s) fit for giving statement. Then, injured Jaswinder Singh
got recorded his statement to the effect that on 21.07.2024, at
about 01.00 PM, he along with his mother had gone to biscuit
factory of his parental uncle namely, Tarsem Singh son of Ajaib
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-401-2025
Singh, resident of Village Kalyan for preparation of biscuits,
where his aunt Baljeet Kaur was also present. At about 02.15
PM, his brother Gurdhian Singh also came there. At about
02:30 P.M., one Swift Car, one Scorpio Car bearing registration
No.PB-11-CZ-9361, followed by one Alto Car and i-20 Car
came from the side of his village. The occupants of the car were
namely, Harpreet Singh @ Happy son of Rajinder Singh armed
with Gandasa, Manpreet Singh @ Mani son of Rajinder Singh
armed with Iron Rod, Gurkamal Singh @ Landa son of Ruldu
Singh armed with Kirpan, Baljit Singh Booby son of Rajinder
Singh armed with Stick, Mani son of Singara Singh armed with
Iron Daah came out of the vehicle. From the car, behind Jasni
son of Harmail Singh armed with Stick, Yad Yadu armed with
Iron Rod and 15-16 unidentified persons came out who were
armed with Sticks, Iron Rods and Kirpan. Harpreet Singh @
Happy raised lalkara not to spare the complainant Jaswinder
Singh and Gurdhian Singh and that they be taught a lesson for
opposing them. Complainant and his brother ran away from the
spot. Harpreet Singh @ Happy and Manpreet Singh @ Mani
again raised lalkara to catch hold of them. Harpreet Singh gave
a Gandasa blow to his brother Gurdhian Singh who fell down
near biscuit factory. Manpreet Singh & Mani gave a blow on his
head. Manpreet Singh gave an Iron Rod blow on the head of his
brother Gurdhian Singh with an intention to kill him. His
brother fell down whereas he raised hue and cry. Then
Gurkamal Singh gave Kirpan blow on the left knee of his brother
Gurdhian Singh. Gurkamal Singh gave another blow on the left
knee of his brother. Then Gurkamal Singh gave Kirpan blow on
his head with an intention to kill him. Manpreet Singh gave an
Iron Rod blow on his head and he fell down. Harpreet Singh @
Happy gave Gandasa blow on the left arm of his brother
Gurdhian Singh due to which his left arm got fractured.
Remaining accused with their respective weapons also inflicted
injuries. His paternal Uncle Tarsem Singh, his paternal aunt
Baljit Kaur and mother Harjit Kaur raised alarm and on the
road many passerby were gathered. Then all the accused along
with their respective weapons fled away from the spot on their
vehicle. Around 15/20 days ago, a dispute occurred in his
Village with which he and his family members have nothing to
do. Gorakh Nath son of Harnam Singh and Rajinder Singh Fauji
son of Nirmal Singh of their Village, who uses to stare at him
and used to extend threats that they will teach him a lesson, due
to which Gorakh Nath and Rajinder Singh nurturing the grudge
Harpreet Singh Happy, Manpreet Singh @ Mani, Gurkamal
Singh, Baljit Singh, Mani, Jashni, Yaad @ Yadu and 15/16
unidentified persons in connivance with each other gave
beatings to him and his brother Gurdhian Singh. Then his father,
Avtar Singh arranged a vehicle and got admitted him and his
brother Gurdhian Singh to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, where
after giving first aid, doctor has referred them to Rajindra
Hospital, Patiala, where they are under treatment. Legal action
may be taken against said accused persons."
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 status report.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-401-2025
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report,
which read as follows:
"16. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER
That the present FIR was registered against the
petitioner/accused Gurkamalpreet Singh Kamal and his other
co-accused. The petitioner is named in the FIR and there are
specific allegations against the petitioner to be a member of
unlawful assembly which was armed with deadly weapons and
leashed out the murderous attack upon the complainant and his
brother, whereby they due were badly attacked on their heads,
legs, and they remained admitted in P.G.I., Chandigarh and
Rajendra Hospital, Patiala. The petitioner Gurkamalpreet
Singh @ Kamal inflicted the blow of the sword on the left knee
of the brother of the complainant and also inflicted the blow of
the sword on the head of complainant with an intention to kill
them. During investigation, CCTV footage was checked, which
shows that the petitioner was not only member of unlawful
assembly, which was armed with deadly weapons, but also
actively has participated in the commission of this heinous
crime and the petitioner was armed with sword, inflicted
injuries on the person of complainant and his brother. The
photograph of injured persons speaks volume of the intensity
of this murderous attack and it is sheer luck that injured(s)
have survived this attack. As per MLR's, the complainant had
suffered six injuries and his brother had suffered seven injuries.
Due to these injuries, the complainant and his brother remained
admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. So, a specific role is
attributed to the petitioner in the commission of present
offence."
7. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged
crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction
sentencing.
8. Per paragraph 9 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since
01.08.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 05.03.2025, the petitioner's total custody in
this FIR is 07 months and 03 days and he is a first offender.
9. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the
primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case,
there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
10. 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.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-401-2025
11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest
Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
12. 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)
13. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
14. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
15. 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
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.
16. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount
to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as 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 firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the
preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond
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 from release from prison and
inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act,
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-401-2025
1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this
case, provided otherwise permissible in 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.
17. 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."
18. It is clarified that if the petitioner 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 petitioner moves
for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so.
19. 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 have the liberty to cancel this bail.
20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
21. 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.
22. 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
