Binder Singh v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 182 29.12.2024 Nehianwala, 551(6), 115(2), 191(3), 190 of District Bathinda BNS, 2023

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court under Sec!on 482 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 15 of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the translated copy of FIR annexed with the bail pe!!on as Annexure P-1, which reads as follows: "Statement of Jaspal Singh, Son of Ajmer Singh, Son of Sarban Singh, Resident Near Bhai Bhagtu Gurdwara Sahib, Nehianwala, Age about 35 Years, Mobile No.95920-xxxx, stated that I am a resident of the abovemen*oned address and work as a carpenter. On 12.10.2024, our en*re family was present at home, and at about 10:00 PM when Sandeep Singh, Sonu Singh (sons of Gurbakhsh Singh), Sukhdev Singh (son of Mehar Singh), Jaspreet Singh, Harpreet Singh (sons of Binder Singh), Binder Singh (son of Jagga Singh), Channa Singh (son of Jarnail Singh), order/judgment. 1 Kartar Singh (son of Nazar Singh), Labbhi Singh (son of not known), Harnam Singh, and Sukhdev Singh (sons of Mehar Singh) were burs*ng firecrackers in the street. When we stopped them and told them not to burst firecrackers because it scared our animals, they got into an argument with us. We then closed the main gate of our house. The above-men*oned persons climbed onto their roof and entered our roof. Among them, Sandeep Singh was holding an iron spade, Jaspreet Singh had a knife, Binder Singh had an axe, and Sonu was holding a rod. As soon as these persons came onto our roof, they damaged the TV dish antennas, the sheets of the shed where animals are kept, and the stairs. They then entered our house and a>acked us. When my sister-in-law Rajvinder Kaur tried to intervene, they beat her as well. We started shou*ng for help, which a>racted the a>en*on of passersby, and a crowd gathered. Upon seeing this, they broke our main gate and fled from the spot with their weapons. Later, my wife Jaspreet Kaur arranged the vehicle and admi>ed us to the Government Hospital Bathinda, where we received treatment. We were discharged on the date 17.10.2024. Today, I have narrated the truth and recorded my statement. It has been heard and is correct. Ac*on should be taken."

¶4Counsel for the pe!!oner submits that he would have no objec!on in case any stringent condi!ons this Court might put upon the pe!!oner including surrender of fire arms, if any and he will not enter the property of the complainant/vic!m and if he does so, he has no objec!on if the State files an applica!on for cancella!on of bail. He contends that pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family. He further submits that co-accused has already granted benefit of an!cipatory bail.

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

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the status report, which read as follows: "24. xxx xxx A. The evidence based on which the pe**oner was arraigned as an accused. The complainant Jaspal Singh had categorically stated against the accused/pe**oner Binder Singh and named him in his statement being ac*ve accused, who was armed with axe. Furthermore, the inves*ga*ng order/judgment. 2 officer had also prima facie found the prime and ac*ve involvement of accused/pe**oner in the occurrence duly based on the iden*fica*on of complainant and video footage produced by him. B. The evidence against the pe**oner. As stated earlier, the complainant Jaspal Singh had categorically stated against the accused/pe**oner Binder Singh and named him in his statement being ac*ve accused, who was armed with axe. Furthermore, the inves*ga*ng officer had also prima facie found the prime and ac*ve involvement of accused/pe**oner in the occurrence duly based on the iden*fica*on of complainant and video footage produced by him. C. The role of the pe**oner. The accused/pe**oner Binder Singh armed with Axe along with their unlawful assembly inflicted injuries aFer criminal trespassing into the house of complainant Jaspal Singh as such he played prima role in the occurrence along with other accused persons."

¶7Counsel for the complainant opposes the bail on the grounds that recovery of weapon is to take place. There was an unlawful assembly and when the police went to arrest them, even the police party were aBacked, which shows that the criminal mind set of the pe!!oner. REASONING:

¶8As per allega!ons, the pe!!oner along with his co-accused armed with different dangerous weapons forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and then aBacked upon him and his family members. A perusal of the record shows that there were two injured persons, who are having 3 and 2 injuries, but none has been declared to be grievous in nature. A perusal of the status report shows that pe!!oner was armed with axe but no injury has been aBributed. Co-accused have already been granted bail by this Court on 11.03.2025 passed in CRM-M-9114-2025, who was on the similar foo!ng, as such, no ground is made out to deny bail to the pe!!oner.

¶9Pre-trial incarcera!on should not be a replica of post-convic!on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu!on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an!cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus!fy custodial interroga!on or pre-trial incarcera!on.

¶10Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there order/judgment. 3 would be no jus fiability for custodial interroga on or the pre-trial incarcera on at this stage. Without commen ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men oned above, the pe

oner makes a case for bail.

¶11Given above, provided the pe

oner is not required in any other case, the pe

oner shall be released on an cipatory bail in the FIR cap oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa sfac on of the Arres ng Officer, and if the maBer is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶12While furnishing a personal bond, the pe

oner shall men on the following personal iden fica on details:

¶1AADHAR number

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

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶13This order is subject to the pe

oner's complying with the following terms.

¶14The pe**oner is directed to join the inves*ga*on 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 Inves*gator and fully cooperate in the recovery of weapon. The pe

oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe

oner shall join the inves ga on as and when called by the Inves ga ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves ga on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu on will be open to seeking cancella on of the bail. During the inves ga on, the pe

oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶15The pe

oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe

oner 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.

¶16Given the background of allega ons against the pe

oner, it becomes paramount to protect the vic m, members of society, and incapacita ng the accused would be one of the primary op ons un l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiBal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restric on 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 sanc on]. Given the nature of the allega ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe

oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiMeen days and inform the Inves gator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe

oner shall be en tled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquiBal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restric ng firearms would ins ll confidence in the vic m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea ng the offense.

¶17Given the nature of the allega ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe

oner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the vic m un l the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condi on to rule out any aBempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic m. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves ga on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna BhaB v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶18In case the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta on arraigns another sec on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec ons men oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec ons men oned above; then, in that case, the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe

oner no ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶19This bail is condi onal, and the founda onal condi on is that if the pe

oner

indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica on for cancella on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶20Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶21A cer fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe

oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aBest it to be a true copy. If the aBes ng officer wants to verify its authen city, such an officer can also verify its authen city and may download and use the downloaded copy for aBes ng bonds.

¶22Petition allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

12.05.2025 Jyo -II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 01.05.2025 Pronounced on: 12.05.2025 Binder Singh ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Amandeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Arshpreet Khadial, Advocate for the complainant. ****