[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Khem Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 2 May, 2025
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:058038
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-41770-2019
Khem Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another
... Respondents
2. CRM-M-42125-2019
Khem Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another
... Respondents
Date of decision: 2nd May, 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Amandeep S. Rai, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent/State.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Advocate
Amicus Curiae for respondents No.2.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
1. The petitioner in both the instant petitions filed under
Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has sought
cancellation of bail granted to the private respondents in FIR No.183
dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 307, 326, 325, 323,
341, 148, 149 of IPC registered at Police Station Samana, District
Patiala. Since both these petitions have their genesis in the same FIR,
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-05-2025 16:39:06 :::
CRM-M-41770 & 42125-2019 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:058038
2
they are being taken up together for disposal by way of this common
order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant is seeking
cancellation of bail granted to the private respondents on the ground that
they have grossly misused the concession of bail granted to them vide
order dated 02.04.2019 (Annexure P-2) and have acted in blatant
violation of the conditions imposed by the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of
this Court to a serious incident that took place on 02.06.2019, wherein
the private respondents, accompanied by certain unidentified persons
allegedly arrived at the residence of Prabhjot Kaur in a Maruti car,
armed with rifles, swords, and other deadly weapons. Allegedly, they
forcibly broke the lock of the main gate, illegally entered the premises,
and issued threats to Prabhjot Kaur and her mother. The petitioner, who
is the complainant in the FIR against the private respondents, was
allegedly physically assaulted, dragged by his beard, and threatened with
dire consequences, including death.
4. It is further submitted that despite lodging a formal
complaint at Police Station Samana, no effective action was initiated by
the police. Subsequently, representations were also submitted to the
Senior Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala,
but to no avail.
5. On being put to notice, learned State counsel filed reply by
way of separate affidavits of Jatinder Singh Aulakh IPS, IGP Patiala
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-05-2025 16:39:07 :::
CRM-M-41770 & 42125-2019 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:058038
3
Range, Patiala and Guriqbal Singh, PPS, DSP Sub Division Samana,
District Patiala. Although as per office report, service upon the private
respondents was affected however, despite the case being adjourned
repeatedly none entered appearance on behalf of the private respondents.
Resultantly, Mr. Rajat Gautam, Advocate was appointed as Amicus
Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the private respondents.
6. Learned State counsel has submitted, on instructions, that
preliminary inquiry was conducted by the SHO, Police Station Sadar
Samana. During the inquiry, CCTV footage was collected from the
complainant, which clearly depicts the presence of the private
respondents at the premises of Prabhjot Kaur.
7. Learned Amicus, on the other hand, has submitted that the
authenticity of the CCTV footage collected from the complainant would
be put to test only during trial and it apparently is a fabricated footage
just to falsely implicate the private respondents on account of their
strained relations and to curtail their liberty, which was granted by this
Court vide orders dated 02.04.2019 and 15.12.2017. It has also been
submitted that even otherwise, in the CCTV footage, the private
respondents appeared to be unarmed.
8. However, learned State counsel has, on the other hand,
submitted that although the private respondents appeared to be unarmed
in the footage, the factum of their unauthorized entry into the premises
stands substantiated.
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-05-2025 16:39:07 :::
CRM-M-41770 & 42125-2019 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:058038
4
9. Learned State counsel has further submitted that in view of
the aforesaid incident, a separate FIR No.209 dated 11.11.2019 was
registered under Section 323, 355, 452, 506, 148, 149 IPC read with
sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act against the private respondents.
They were subsequently arrested on 20.02.2020 and in that FIR the
challan has been presented before the competent Court, where the trial is
now pending against the private respondents.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
11. Upon careful consideration, this Court finds merit in the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The private
respondents were extended the concession of regular bail subject to
implied conditions that they would not misuse the liberty granted,
tamper with evidence, or intimidate witnesses. However, the record
indicates that, soon after securing bail, the private respondents not only
trespassed into the residence of the relatives of the complainant, but also
issued threats and assaulted the complainant, thereby grossly
undermining the authority of the Court and the sanctity of the bail order.
12. It is well settled that liberty granted to an accused by way of
bail can be curtailed if the same is misused. If an accused, after grant of
bail, engages in acts that amount to interference with the due course of
justice – such as intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, or
commission of further offenses – such conduct forms a cogent and
compelling ground for cancellation of bail.
4 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 03-05-2025 16:39:07 :::
CRM-M-41770 & 42125-2019 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:058038
5
13. Adverting to the present case, the conduct of the private
respondents after the grant of bail on 02.04.2019 and 15.12.2017 is not
only reprehensible but also demonstrative of a deliberate disregard for
the conditions and spirit under which the extraordinary concession of
anticipatory bail was granted to them. Their alleged acts are not isolated
or trivial; they reveal a pattern of intimidation, lawlessness and threat to
the fair administration of justice.
14. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to observe that the
private respondents have forfeited the privilege of bail by their overt acts
of intimidation and assault, which are clearly in violation of the
conditions imposed at the time of granting bail. Resultantly, the instant
petitions are allowed and bail granted to the private respondents vide
orders dated 02.04.2019 and 15.12.2017 is hereby cancelled. The trial
Court is directed to take them into custody forthwith and proceed in
accordance with law. However, it is made clear that anything observed
hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
May 2, 2025
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 03-05-2025 16:39:07 :::
[ad_2]
Source link