Rajeev Singh Alias Rajiv Alias Dugg v. State of Punjab

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1.

Present petition is second attempt, which has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 25 dated 09.04.2025 under Sections 109, 118(1), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023 (307, 324, 148, 149 of the IPC, 1860) & Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Chattiwind, District Amritsar Rural.

2.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:-

"Statement of Sukhdev Singh S/o Shinda Singh R/o Manawala Kalan, P.S. Chattiwind District Amritsar age about 55

P a g e | 2

years (94649-38109) stated that I am resident of above address and is doing hard work. I have 3 sons, eldest is Robin Singh, younger than him is Sandeep Singh and youngest is Mandeep Singh. three of my sons are involved in doing hard work relating to iron rods tying. Today at 1-30 night all of our family was sleeping after having dinner inside our house and suddenly we heard the noise of nuisance and hooting inside the street and also heard abuses after taking our names. I and my son Mandeep Singh after hearing those noises went outside in the street and saw that Sikander Singh S/o Bhinda Singh R/o Manawala empty handed, Rajiv @ Dug S/o Bittu Churia Wala R/o Manawala having pistol, Roman @ Ram Singh S/o Bittu Churia Wala R/o Manawala having datar, Gurkirat Singh @ Poona S/o Tirath Singh R/o Manawala having datar, Jashandeep Singh @ Ganja S/o Hardeep Singh R/o Manawala having pistol, Akash @Dadde S/o Ginda @ Nacha Baba R/o Manawala having datar, Ajay S/o Balwinder Singh R/o Manawala having pistol were hooting in the outside street. At that time the light in the street was on when my son Mandeep Singh came forward then Roman @Ram Singh gave datar blow on my son Mandeep Singh which hit on his head and then Akash above gave datar blow on my son Mandeep Singh which hit on his face on the left side, we raised alarm of maar dita maar dita then the accused persons went away from the spot while threating and hooting and we after arranging the vehicle got our son admitted at manawala hospital. I and my nephew Bobby Singh S/o Gulshan Singh R/o Manawala, Kulbir Singh S/o Niranjan Singh went to police chowki daburji and were going back to our village. That when we reached reliance petrol pump gt road then at about 3:30/3:45 morning, above all accused persons came behind us and surrounded us. My accompanies fled away from the spot. Rajiv @ Dug with intention to kill me gave direct shot from his pistol which hit on my left leg above the knee. Other accused persons fired ¼ shots in the air and I raised alarm of maar dita maar dita. The above accused along with their weapons fled away from the spot. My family members after arranging the vehicle got me admitted in guru nanak dev hospital Amritsar where I am under medical treatment. Above accused persons after connivance with each other has injured me and my son Mandeep singh, the rivalry behind this is that 6/7 months ago

P a g e | 3

these accused persons had some quarrel with us. Appropriate legal action be taken against them. I am responsible. SD/- Sukhdev Singh (Sukhdev Singh above) verified by SD/- Harpal Singh ASI Chowki Incharge Daburji Thana Chatiwind dated

09.04.2025"

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2025. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that now a settlement/compromise has been arrived at between the petitioner and the FIR-complainant as also the victim. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon affidavit dated 06.04.2026 (Annexures P-2 & P-3). Thus, regular bail is prayed for.

4.

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the present petition by arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and, hence, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. He seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 15.07.2026, which is taken on record.

4.1.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3/FIR-complainant as also the victim has ratified the aspect of matter having compromised between the parties.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2025 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 12.08.2025. Total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited and out of which none has been examined till date. It is not in dispute that culmination of trial will

P a g e | 4

take long. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to the dicta passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494, relevant whereof reads thus:

"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

¶19If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable, which issues shall be ratiocinated upon during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence.

6.1.

Indubitably, the present petition is the second attempt on behalf of the petitioner for securing regular bail. The first one bearing no.

P a g e | 5

CRM-M-54406-2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.10.2025 (Annexure P-8). However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstance of the case in hand especially keeping in view the extended custody, pace of trial and matter having been amicably settled between the FIR-complainant as also the victim on one hand and the accused-side on another; this Court is inclined to favourably consider the instant plea for bail. A profitable reference, in this regard, can be made to a judgment of this Court passed in CRA-S-2332-2023 titled as Rafiq Khan versus State of Haryana and another; relevant whereof reads as under: "10.

As an epilogue to the above discussion, the following principles emerge: I Second/successive regular bail petition(s) filed is maintainable in law & hence such petition ought not to be rejected solely on the ground of maintainability thereof.

II. Such second/successive regular bail petition(s) is maintainable whether earlier petition was dismissed as withdrawn/dismissed as not pressed/dismissed for non-prosecution or earlier petition was dismissed on merits.

III For the second/successive regular bail petition(s) to succeed, the petitioner/applicant shall be essentially/pertinently required to show substantial change in circumstances and showing of a mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice. The metaphoric expression of seeking second/successive bail plea(s) ought not be abstracted into literal iterations of petition(s) without substantial, effective and consequential change in circumstances.

IV No exhaustive guidelines can possibly be laid down as to what would constitute substantial change in circumstances as every case has its own unique facts/circumstance. Making such an attempt is nothing but an utopian endeavour. Ergo, this issue is best left to the judicial wisdom and discretion of the Court dealing with such second/successive regular bail petition(s). V In case a Court chooses to grant second/successive regular bail petition(s), cogent and lucid reasons are pertinently required to be recorded for granting such plea despite such a plea being second/successive petition(s). In other words, the cause for a Court having successfully countenanced/entertained such second/successive petition(s) ought to be readily and clearly decipherable from the said order passed."

P a g e | 6

Further as per custody certificate dated 15.07.2026 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year and 25 days and is stated to be involved in one more case/FIR. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.

Suffice to say, the further detention of the petitioner in custody is not required in the facts and circumstances of the case.

7.

In view of above, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence,

oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date

P a g e | 7

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while

on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with

the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell phone number to

the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police

Station and shall not change his cell-phone number

without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa

Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay

the trial.

8.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

11.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.

(SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE July 16, 2026 Naveen

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.07.2026 Date of uploading: 16.07.2026 Rajeev Singh @ Rajiv @ Dugg ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Harmanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Hemant Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Harinderpal Singh & Mr. Ashutosh Pandey, Advocates for respondents No.2 & 3. *****