Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bagha Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007224
1
CRM-M-48288-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
216
CRM-M-48288-2024
Decided on: 14.01.2025
Bagha Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. L.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Navinderjit Singh Dandiwal, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
14 22.01.2024 Bhindi Saidan, 324, 323, 452, 379, 427, 148,
District Amritsar 149 IPC (Later on added
Sections 325/326 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. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which
reads as follows:
“2. That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that aforesaid FIR No.
14 dated 22.01.2024 was registered on the basis of the statement of Karam
Singh son of Shingara Singh, who had alleged therein that on 14.01.2024
at about 11:00 AM, there was a minor altercation between him and
Nishan Singh and Vir Singh relating to water outflow but the matter was
settled with the intervention of respectable persons. Thereafter at about
02:00 PM, his maternal uncle Bhagwan Singh and Satpal Singh son of his1
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 21:23:58 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0072242
CRM-M-48288-2024
maternal uncle had came to his house and in the meantime, Nishan Singh,
Darshan Singh, Kashmir Singh, Vir Singh, Bhan Singh, Bittu Singh,
Gujjar Singh, Lakha Singh, Gurmej Singh, Jagga Singh, Kalu Singh, Surti
Singh, Dhava Singh, Kashmir Singh and Bagga Singh (petitioner) all
armed with weapons like datars, baseball bat, dang, iron rods forcibly
trespassed into his house and the co-accused Nishan Singh raised a
lalkara to teach him a lesson for digging a water channel outside their
house and caused injury on his head with a blow of datar and Veer Singh
caused injury on his hand with a blow of iron rod. He further alleged that
when his maternal uncle Bhagwan Singh and Satpal Singh son of his
maternal uncle came forward to rescue him, Gujjar Singh caused injury
on the left elbow of his maternal uncle Bhagwan Singh with a blow of iron
rod and the petitioner caused injury on back of Bhagwan Singh with a
blow of a baseball bat. He further alleged that the co-accused Lakha
Singh and Bittu Singh caused injuries on the backside of head and back of
Bhagwan Singh with the respective blows of datar and rod and Jagga
Singh, Kalu Singh, Dhava Singh, Kashmir Singh, Gurmej Singh, Surti
Singh and Bhan Singh caused injuries on the right wrist, right side of
head, left side of head, right shoulder, right arm, right thigh and right leg
of Satpal Singh, son of his maternal uncle with the respective blows of rod,
datar, baseball bat, dang and the unidentified 8/10 persons damaged the
window panes, washing machine. He further alleged that when his family
members raised hue and cry for help, the aforesaid accused took away one
computer and Z-62 camera. The detailed facts mentioned by the
complainant Karam Singh in his aforesaid statement has been reproduced
in the true translation of the aforesaid FIR No. 14 dated 22.01.2024
attached with the petition as Annexure P-1, which may kindly be read as a
part of present paragraph as same are not repeated here for the sake of
brevity.”
4. Petitioner’s counsel submits that there is a cross case and the petitioner has been
falsely implicated. 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. State counsel does not dispute about the cross case but opposes the bail.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read
as follows:
2
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 21:23:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:0072243
CRM-M-48288-2024
” ROLE OF THE PETITIONER
6. That as per the version of the complainant Karam Singh, the
petitioner being armed with a baseball bat and as an active member of an
unlawful assembly consisting of him and the other co-accused attacked
upon the him and his maternal uncle Bhagwan Singh and Satpal Singh son
of his maternal uncle and caused injuries upon them in furtherance of
their common object. The petitioner is attributed injury on the back of
Bhagwan Singh.
Evidence against the petitioner
7. That the evidence against the petitioner is in the form of oral statement
of the complainant Karam Singh, Bhagwan Singh recorded under section
161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, which is corroborated with the
Medico-Legal Report of Bhagwan Singh.”
7. The State’s counsel did agree that there is a cross case and there are 14 accused in
FIR case and 10 in DDR case. Further three persons are mentioned injured in the FIR
case and three in DDR case. The present petitioner was attributed injury with baseball bat
at the back of Bhagwan Singh and the motive is altercation due to water flow. A perusal
of the FIR does not refer about the injury received in the cross case, thus it appears that
entire occurrence was not stated in the FIR and something has been concealed. It is very
difficult at this stage to figure out how much statement is truthful, what was concealed
and withheld and what was exerated and same would be the position in the cross case,
which is also pointing out that all the facts were not mentioned, however all this is
subject matter of investigation. Undoubtedly, there are injuries received on the head of
the person, but in the facts and circumstances, it is very difficult to state that who was the
aggressor and who had initiated the occurrence. The total 24 people are involved, 14 from
one side and 10 from other and when so much of people are involved and there is silence
in the allegations about each other, in case this Court refuses the bail, it might cause
injustice to the petitioner. Thus on safer side, this Court is not inclined to send the
petitioner for custodial interrogation or pre-trial custody, without knowing and also
keeping in mind that possibility of complainant’s being involved is also there.
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
3
3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 21:23:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007224
4
CRM-M-48288-2024
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.
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. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 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.
14. 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.
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
4
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 21:23:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007224
5
CRM-M-48288-2024
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.
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,
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. 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
5
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 21:23:59 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007224
6
CRM-M-48288-2024
days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
19. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of
this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at 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
14.01.2025
anju rani
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
6
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 21-01-2025 21:23:59 :::
[ad_1]
Source link