Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 March, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-10572-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10572-2025
Reserved on: 19.03.2025
Pronounced on: 27.03.2025
Manpreet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. S. S. Saron, Advocate and
Mr. M. B. Rajwade, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
70 09.11.2024 Harike, District 125 BNS and 25 of Arms Act
(Vide DDR No.23 dated
Tarn Taran
03.02.2025 offence u/s 111,
191(3)/190 BNS and 25(6) &
(7) of Arms Act added and
vide DDR No.25 dated
04.02.2025 offence u/s 109
BNS added)
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 15 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:
"5. That the true facts leading to this case are that the
complainant namely Sukhbir Singh son of Pratap Singh got
recorded his statement before the Investigating Officer to the
effect that he along with his family members including his wife
Ranjit Kaur and 02 sons Pritpal Singh, aged 25 years and
Akashdeep Singh, aged 21 years have been living abroad in
United States of America since 2018. His mother Surinder
Kaur and father Pratap Singh live here situated in Village
Kirtowal Kalan. He along with his family came to his house at
village Kirtowal Kalan on 23.10.2024 from America. His two
sons went to Sri Anandpur Sahib for paying obeisance on
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-10572-2025
07.11.2024. He and his wife Ranjit Kaur, both at first went to
Patti on 08.11.2024 at 12 noon for some personal work and
then, they went to their relatives in Village Gandiwind
Dhattal. Yesterday at about 6 O'clock, his father Pratap Singh
informed him on phone that some unknown persons by
standing outside their house in Gali fired towards their house
and bullet shots hit on the main gate. When he came home at
8:00 PM, he saw that there were 09 bullets fired at the gate of
his house. He found 09 empty cartridges and one shell of
cartridge and the said cartridges were taken into possession
by the Police and on the basis of which, the present case FIR
No.70 dated 09.11.2024, under Section 125 of BNS & 25 of
the Arms Act has been registered at Police Station Harike,
District Tarn Taran against one unknown person."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that 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.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report,
which read as follows:
"EVIDENCE BASED ON WHICH THE PETITIONER
WAS ARRAIGNED AS AN ACCUSED:
11. That it is submitted that the petitioner was nominated as
accused in the present case on the basis of secret information
received from the secret informer. Moreover, after making
arrest of the co-accused Harpreet Singh and Gursahib Singh,
they voluntarily suffered their Disclosure Statement before the
Investigating Officer to the effect that the petitioner Manpreet
Singh in connivance with them have committed the above said
offence.
EVIDENCE BASED ON WHICH THE PETITIONER WAS
ARRAIGNED AS AN ACCUSED:
12. That as far as evidence against the petitioner is
concerned, it is submitted that the co-accused Harpreet Singh
and Gursahib Singh have suffered their Disclosure Statements
before the Investigating Officer in which they have stated the
name of the present petitioner. Moreover, the weapons have
also been recovered from the co-accused in the present case
and there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner.
ROLE OF THE PETITIONER:
13. That as far as role of the petitioner is concerned, it is
submitted that the petitioner namely Manpreet Singh while
driving his Verna car has gone to the place of occurrence with
co-accused and he has actively participated in the execution
of above said offence. As such, the petitioner has committed
the serious offence and he is certainly not entitled for the
concession of anticipatory bail and the custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is utmost required in the present
case in order to bring the investigation of the present case to
its logical conclusion."
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-10572-2025
7. Name of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of disclosure statement and there is
no specific attribution to the petitioner except that he was member of unlawful assembly
which can be proved during trial.
8. 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.
9. 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.
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.
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 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.
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. 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,
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-10572-2025
inhuman treatment, etc.
14. The investigation indicates that the petitioner is 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.
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 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 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.
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. 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
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-10572-2025
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.
19. 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.
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 have the 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
27.03.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
