Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gopal Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 24 January, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-57021-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57021-2024
Reserved on: 09.01.2025
Pronounced on: 24.01.2025
Gopal Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Rohit Joshi, Advocate and
Mr. Jashandeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
175 13.07.2023 Kotwali, District 160, 302, 303, 323, 324, 325,
Kapurthala 326, 332, 186, 353, 148, 149,
120-B IPC and 42 of Prisons
Act
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court
under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail.
2. Per paragraph 9 of the bail application and 8 of affidavit, the accused has the
following criminal antecedents:-
Sr. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
No.
1. 66 20.10.2018 354-A, 452, 427, 148, 149 IPC Rawalpindi
2. 53 08.12.2022 25-54-59 of Arms Act Rawalpindi
3. 181/2023 - - District
Kapurthala
4. 87 23.11.2015 323, 341, 34, 120-B IPC Rawalpindi
5. 27 14.04.2018 353, 186, 332, 34 IPC Rawalpindi
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the affidavit filed by the State,
which reads as follows:-
“3.That it is respectfully submitted that the present case bearing
FIR No.175 dated 13.07.2023 (P-1) under Section 160, 302, 303,
323, 324, 325, 326, 332, 186, 353, 148, 149, 120-B IPC and Section
Jyoti Sharma 42 Prison Act, was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District
2025.01.24 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
1
CRM-M-57021-2024Kapurthala on the complaint of Hemant Sharma, the then
Additional Superintendent, Central Jail, Kapurthala initially
against 22 prisoners. The present petitioner was subsequently
nominated in the present case on 16.08.2023, following the receipt
of letter no. 3153 from the Superintendent of Central Jail,
Kapurthala, dated 16.08.2023, which recommended the inclusion of
four additional accused in the investigation, including Gopal
Kumar, son of Hans Raj, of Village Panshta, PS Rawalpindi,
District Kapurthala, as per Rapat No. 28, dated 16.08.2023.
That after the registration of the above said FIR, thorough
investigation was conducted and from the footage of the CCTV
cameras at the spot, it has transpired that on 13.07.2023 at about
7.30 AM, about 30-35 inmates in collusion with each other gather
at Phase-2 gate from their barracks, at Central Jail Kapurthala,
out of which 31 prisoners have already been identified, out of
whom, some of the inmates had weapons and some were empty
handed. 21 inmates crossed the gate of Phase-II and proceeded
towards security ward-E. On the way, on being stopped by the
police and security forces, they scuffle with them as well. These
prisoners entered the Chakki No. 17 of the Security Ward – E and
gravely beaten Simranjit Singh @ Simar son of Resham Singh, and
his 3 companions Surinder Singh @ Jimmy son of Mann Singh,
Amanpreet Singh @ Sonu son of Sarabjit Singh and Varinder Pal
Singh @ Raja were also beaten and Simranjit singh @ Simar was
Seriously Injured. The remaining 11 inmates along with about 7-8
unknown inmates stopped the police personnels from closing the
gate of Phase-II, So that there is no disturbance to their fellow
inmates while returning from security Ward-E after the incident.
The injuries were inflicted upon the deceased and injured
prisoners with sharp edge Iron Weapon- Patti type on the head and
other parts of Simranjit Singh. Subsequently during the treatment,
the abovesaid injured Simranjit scummed to his injuries at Guru
Nanak Medical College Amritsar on 13.07.2023 after which a case
was registered and an investigation was carried out.
5. During the investigation it was also found that the present
petitioner was involved in the conspiracy and he himself has not
gone to the place of the Incident whereas it has been found that he
remained at or near the gate of Phase-2 and prevented the closing
of the gate of Phase-2 so that their fellow prisoners could go back
to their barracks after carrying out the incident in security ward E.
The Petitioner Gopal Kumar was produced before the Ld. Court on
19.08.2023 through a production warrant. Upon seeking the
permission of the court, they were included in the investigation
process. The accused were then arrested, and 2 days police remand
was granted for further interrogation. Following the interrogation,
disclosure statements were recorded, and the accused were placed
under judicial custody thereafter.”
4. The petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
Jyoti Sharma
2025.01.24 16:00
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
2
CRM-M-57021-2024
petitioner and their family.
5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the affidavit.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the affidavit, which
read as follows:-
“2. Role of the Petitioner and evidence against the petitioner:
From the final investigation proceedings instituted as yet, The
present petitioner was subsequently nominated in the present case on
16.08.2023, following the receipt of letter no. 3153 from the
Superintendent of Central Jail, Kapurthala, dated 16.08.2023, which
recommended the inclusion of four additional accused in the
investigation, including Gopal Kumar, son of Hans Raj, of Village
Panshta, PS Rawalpindi, District Kapurthala, as per Rapat No. 28,
dated 16.08.2023.
During the investigation it was also found that the present
petitioner was involved in the conspiracy and himself has not gone
to the place of the Incident whereas it has been found that
heremained at or near the gate of Phase-2 and prevented the closing
of the gate of Phase-2 so that their fellow prisoners could go back to
their barracks after carrying out the incident in security ward E. He
has a clear motive to commit the crime and played an active role in
carrying out the murder. The offence is particularly serious, as the
murder was premeditated and carried out within the confines of the
jail.”
7. The incident took place in the prison in which number of inmates were present.
Even as per affidavit filed by the State, allegation against the petitioner is of criminal
conspiracy and it is explicitly mentioned that he did not cause any injury to the deceased.
Even the evidence of conspiracy is sketchy which might be sufficient to launch
prosecution or frame charges but is insufficient to deny bail.
8. 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.
9. Per paragraph 10 of the affidavit, the petitioner has been in custody since
19.08.2023.
10. 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.
11. 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.
Jyoti Sharma
2025.01.24 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
3
CRM-M-57021-2024
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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)
15. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.
16. 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.
17. 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
Jyoti Sharma
2025.01.24 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
4
CRM-M-57021-2024
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. 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.
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
24.01.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Jyoti Sharma
2025.01.24 16:00
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
5