Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 December, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172051
CRM-M No.64443 of 2024 -1-
109
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.64443 of 2024
Date of Decision: 19.12.2024
Jatinder Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Jasdeep Singh Salooja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0137, dated
01.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 331(4), 305, 304, 3(5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, registered at Police Station
Khilchian, District Amritsar Rural. Further prayer has been made for
granting the interim bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the
present petition.
2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the FIR in the
present case was registered on the statement of complainant, namely,
Jasbir Singh son of Mohan Singh. It was alleged that on 31.10.2024
while he and his wife, namely, Sukhbir Kaur were sleeping then they
heard a noise in the night at about 9.30 P.M. They saw three persons
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172051
CRM-M No.64443 of 2024 -2-
entering their house by climbing the wall of their house. On seeing them,
they raised alarm, however one of the person snatched the gold earrings
of his wife, Sukhbir Kaur. Out of the three, he recognized 02 of the
persons. One of them was Amritpal Singh @ Pali and other was his
brother, namely, Nishan Singh. Thereafter, they jumped over the wall and
escaped from the spot. On checking the house, they found that
Rs.25,000/- and two gold earrings were missing from the cupboard. It
was alleged that Amritpal Singh and Nishan Singh along with their
accomplice had entered their house in the night and committed theft and
forcibly removed the earrings of his wife. The action was sought be taken
against the culprits. On registration of the FIR, the investigation
commenced. During the investigation, complicity of the petitioner
surfaced in the case. Hence, he was also arrayed as an accused in the
present case. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner approached the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. However, after
hearing both the sides and finding no merit in the same, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissed the petition filed by the
petitioner vide his order dated 19.11.2024. Hence the petitioner is before
this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of
anticipatory bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
before this Court that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this
case. He has submitted that neither the petitioner has been named nor
there is any role attributed to him. He has submitted that the petitioner
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172051
CRM-M No.64443 of 2024 -3-
has been named in the present case on the basis of presumptions and
assumptions. He has submitted that it is on the basis of disclosure
statement of the co-accused, the petitioner has been implicated in the
present case and as per the settled proposition of law, the disclosure
statement of co-accused is not an admissible evidence. He has submitted
that though the petitioner is involved in one more case i.e. FIR No.158,
dated 31.07.2017, under Section 379, 411 of IPC, registered at Police
Station Jandiala, District Amritsar Rural but the petitioner is already
released on regular bail in that case vide order dated 10.08.2017. He has
submitted that there being no prima facie case having been made out
against the petitioner, he deserves to be granted anticipatory bail.
3. Notice of motion.
4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG,
Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He
however has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner and has submitted that during investigation, it has been found
that third person along with co-accused was the petitioner. He has thus
submitted that the case is under investigation, thus granting bail to the
petitioner would scuttle the ongoing investigation. He has thus submitted
that the petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.
5. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record with their able assistance.
6. As deciphered from the facts and circumstances of the case
that the FIR was lodged by the complainant on the allegation that three
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172051
CRM-M No.64443 of 2024 -4-
persons committed the theft in his house and gold earrings of his wife
were forcibly removed and taken after entering the house. The
complainant could recognize two of the co-accused, however the third
one could not be recognized. On the arrest of the co-accused, the
disclosure statement of the co-accused was recorded and it was found
that third person was the petitioner. As per record, the petitioner is
involved in one more case of similar nature bearing FIR No.158, dated
31.07.2017. The investigation is at threshold and the allegations against
the petitioner are of serious nature.
7. For the consideration of anticipatory bail, the statutory
parameters are given under Section 482 BNSS which reads as under:-
“Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest:
1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on
an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may
apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction
under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in
the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
2. When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction
under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such
directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may
think fit, including-
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court;
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172051
CRM-M No.64443 of 2024 -5-
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of
section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.
3. If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in
charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either
at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such
officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate
taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should be
issued in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a
bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under
sub-section (1).
4. Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest
of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under
section 65 and sub-section (2) of section 70 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.”
8. As per the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, while
granting anticipatory bail, the Court is to maintain a balance between the
individual liberty and the interest of society. However, the interest of the
society would always prevail upon the right of personal liberty. The
relevant part of the judgment is as follows:-
“31. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation
appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of
justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to
injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested,
a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the
event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other
hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of
the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of
anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172051CRM-M No.64443 of 2024 -6-
would not be made. But the converse of these propositions
is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid
down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot
be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be
actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory
bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant
will abscond. There are several other considerations, too
numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must
weigh with the court while granting or rejecting
anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the
proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead
to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of
the applicant’s presence not being secured at the trial, a
reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered
with and “the larger interests of the public or the state”
are some of the considerations which the court has to keep
in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory
bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed
out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh (1962) 3 SCR 622,
which, though, was a case under the old Section 498
which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code.
It is of paramount consideration to remember that the
freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival
of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the
individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free
man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is
willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the
acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to
impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested,
he shall be enlarged on bail.”
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172051
CRM-M No.64443 of 2024 -7-
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Anil Sharma,
(1997) 7SCC 187, held as under:-
“6.We find force in the submission of the CBI that
custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation
oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced
with a favorable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a
case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person
is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful
informations and also materials which would have been
concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if
the suspected person knows that he is well protected and
insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is
interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition
would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the
custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the
person being subjected to third-degree methods need not
be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced
by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to
presume that responsible police officers would conduct
themselves in a responsible manner and that those
entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not
conduct themselves as offenders.”
10. Weighing the facts of the case on the anvil of the law settled,
it is apparent that the complicity of the petitioner has been prima facie
found. Needless to say, the investigation is at threshold and in the facts
and circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be
essential and granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage
would scuttle the ongoing investigation.
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:20:11 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172051
CRM-M No.64443 of 2024 -8-
11. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
the petitioner do not qualify for the grant of anticipatory bail and the
same is hereby dismissed. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
19.12.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2024 21:20:11 :::