Satwinder Singh Alias Gopa v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

28.12.2024 Division No.1, District Jalandhar 333, 309(4) 127(2), 109 BNS, 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act

¶1The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 12 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: "4. The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR was registered based on the complaint of Dr. Parmod Sharma, who alleged that on

28.12.2024, at about 5:00 PM, he was attending to patients in his clinic located on Nagra Road, Maqsudan, Jalandhar. In the meantime, the accused-petitioner, Satwinder Singh, entered the clinic with his face covered by a Black loyi (a blanket made of thin wool). After entering the complainant's cabin, he sat down at the table and, by showing a pistol, demanded that the complainant hand over his valuables or money, threatening to shoot him otherwise. Out of fear, the complainant handed over ₹7,200 to him. Additionally, the accused-petitioner took ₹2,000 from the cash box. Thereafter, he locked the cabin from the outside and fled from the spot. The complainant managed to come out of the cabin, raised an alarm, and began following the accused. When he tried to stop the accused by grabbing his loyi, the accused pointed the pistol at him and attempted to fire, but the bullet got stuck in the pistol. As people started gathering, a scuffle ensued, during which the accused's pistol fell to the ground. Taking advantage of the situation, the accused fled from the spot. Based on this statement, the present FIR was registered, and the accused was arrested on 29.12.2024."

¶4Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection in case any stringent conditions this Court might put upon the petitioner including surrender of fire arms, if any and in case, petitioner repeats the offence, where the sentence prescribes 07 years or more, he has no objection if the State files an application for cancellation of his bail. He contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which reads as follows: "5. ROLE OF THE PRESENT PETITIONER: There are serious allegations against the present petitioner, Satwinder Singh, who is accused of playing a direct and active role in the commission of the alleged offense. On 28.12.2024, at approximately 5:00 PM, he allegedly concealed his identity under a loyi (a thin woolen blanket), brandished a pistol, and threatened the complainant with dire consequences if he did not hand over his valuables and money. Out of fear and coercion, the complainant handed over ₹7,200 to the accused, who further took ₹2,000 from the cash box. In furtherance of his criminal act, the accused also attempted to fire a shot at the complainant. However, the firearm malfunctioned, preventing the shot from being discharged. The allegations are grave and serious in nature." REASONING:

¶7There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. As per custody certificate dated 07.07.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 06 months and 06 days. 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.

¶8Without 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.

¶9Given 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.

¶10While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶11This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶12The 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.

¶13Given 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 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 from release from prison 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.

¶14The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. 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."

¶15In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, "It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences."

¶16This 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.

¶17Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶18A 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.

¶19Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

22.07.2025 Jyoti-II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 08.07.2025 Pronounced on: 22.07.2025 Satwinder Singh @ Gopa ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. N.S. Minhas, Advocate and Mr. G.S. Minhas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. ****