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. In paragraph 18 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from FIR translation of which is
reproduced in para no.1 of petition, which reads as follows:
"Copy of statement. Statement of Jagshir Singh son of Gurpiar Singh
son of Chand Singh, resident of Beer Khurd, aged about 38 years,
M.No.94177-78449. Stated that I am a resident of above mentioned
address and an agriculturist. We are two brothers and five sisters. All
are married. Yesterday i.e. on 08.06.2024, at about 1.30 PM, I was
irrigating my paddy crops in barmi fields with a motor. My younger
brother Jaswant Singh along with Maninder Singh son of Jagshir
Singh of our village, were returning back to the village from Bhikhi
on my motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-31R-4911 make Bullet
after finishing his domestic work. When my brother Jaswant Singh
reached in front of my fields, then one white coloured Bolero in which
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-38152-2024
8-9 persons were sitting came from the side of Bhikhi and within my
view hit the motorcycle of my brother from back side with great force.
Both the persons fell down from the motorcycle. Maninder Singh was
driving the motorcycle and my brother was pillion rider. Suddenly 8-9
persons came out from the Bolero armed with gandasi, swords, rod
and dandas. They chased my brother Jaswant Singh and Maninder
Singh in order to cause injuries. Maninder Singh ran towards the
right side of road and my brother Jaswant Singh ran towards the
motor. 3-4 persons were chasing Maninder Singh. They caused
injuries to Maninder Singh. 4-5 persons also chased my brother. My
brother Jaswant Singh raised raula mar-dita', 'mar-dita'. They
encircled my brother Jaswant Singh, stopped Bolero and blocked his
way. Out of them Kirach son of Bhola Singh, resident of Beer Khurd,
armed with gandasa, Gursewak Singh son of Nachhattar Singh,
resident of Beer Khurd, armed with sword, Kaka Singh Khoriwala,
resident of Dhepai armed with gandasa, Jugnu Singh son of Swaraz
Singh, Laddi son of Bittu Singh, residents of Beer Khurd armed with
dandas and Gurpreet Singh @ Thori son of Gurtej Singh, resident of
Bhikhi armed with iron rod in connivance with each other and with
the intention to kill my brother Jaswant Singh caused injuries on his
head, forehead, backside of head, legs and arms with their respective
weapons. I also raised raula mar-dita' mar-dita'. The above
mentioned accused along with their respective weapons boarded
Bolero car and went away from the spot towards Bhikhi side.
Thereafter, I sent message to my relatives in the village, brought a
vehicle at the spot and got admitted my brother Jaswant Singh and
Maninder Singh in Govt. Hospital, Mansa. Due to serious injuries my
brother Jaswant Singh was referred. We arranged the ambulance and
got my brother Jaswant Singh admitted in DMC, Ludhiana. My
brother is unconscious. Today he is being operated. They have also
damaged our bullet motorcycle. The reason of grudge is that about 7-
8 years ago, a fight had taken place between my brother Jaswant
Singh and Gursewak Singh son of Nachhattar Singh etc. in the ground
of village and due to this reason above mentioned accused Gora Sigh
@ Kirach, Kaka Singh, Kheriwala, Jugnu Singh, Laddi Singh,
Gursewak Singh, Gurpreet Singh Thori and 3-4 unknown persons
have caused to my brother Jaswant Singh and Maninder Singh. Legal
action be taken against them, FIR be registered and justice be given
to us. Sd/ above mentioned Jagshir Singh."
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.
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.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-38152-2024
However, injured Jaswant Singh had specifically named the names of
03 unknown accused persons to be Monu Singh son of Jarnail Singh,
Petitioner 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 Monu Singh, Petitioner 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."
7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the injury attributed to the petitioner is on
the person of Manjinder Singh who was although hospitalized but has absconded from
the hospital before the doctor could have examine him. He further submits that the other
victim namely Jaswant Singh remained hospitalized for 12 days but the injury on his
person is not attributed to the petitioner.
8. Counsel for the complainant opposed the bail on the ground that as many as 21
injuries were received but counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the injuries is
attributed to the petitioner. He further submits that he has no objection to imposition of
any stringent conditions while granting bail.
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. 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.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-38152-2024
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
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
Jyoti Sharma restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-38152-2024
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.
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
Jyoti Sharma download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-38152-2024
23. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
21.03.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
