Parminder Singh @ Sidhu v. State of Haryana

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

06.08.2023 Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar 364-A/120-B IPC

¶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.

¶2Per paragraph 13 of the bail petition and 28 of status report, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. That on dated 06.08.2023 complainant of this case namely Gaurav Gupta son of Ram Kumar gave a complaint to the police that his father Ram Kumar runs a Karyana shop and he goes for morning as usual at Hartol road Bilaspur and comes back after one or two hours. Today at about 06.10 am he went for walking who was having mobile No. 90502XXXX and has not returned to home upto 0730 am. Telephonic call came from his above said mobile on my mobile No. 9350115746 that he will come by evening, so we remained peaceful. Now at about 10.30 am telephonic call was received from the above said mobile phone of my father at my sister's mobile No. 9306479338 that somebody has kidnapped him and they are demanding Rs. 50 Lakhs and all gold and in case you inform police then I will be killed. Legal action be taken. Thereafter the instant FIR was lodged."

¶4The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

¶5The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that if the petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

¶6The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: "27. Role of the petitioner - That with regard to the role of the petitioner, the petitioner was having friendship with co-accused Raj Kumar alias Raju and with a view to earn money, the petitioner and his co-accused hatched a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Ram Kumar alias Ramu and in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy, on 06.08.2023, the petitioner and his co-accused kidnapped the victim Ram Kumar alias Ramu in Innova Car bearing number HR 58 A 5431 and demanded ransom of Rs.50 Lacs from his release from the family members of the victim."

¶8There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Per paragraph 09 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since

08.08.2023. Per the custody certificate dated 09.07.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 01 year and 11 months. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, petitioner having clean antecedents and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

¶9Without 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. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶10Given 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.

¶11While 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)

¶12This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶13The 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.

¶14The significant consideration for granting bail is that the Court aims to give the petitioner another chance to course-correct, reform, and reintegrate into the community as an ideal citizen. To ensure that the petitioner also abides by the assurance made on the petitioner's behalf by not repeating the offence or indulging in any crime, it shall be desirable to impose the following additional condition.

¶15This bail is conditional, with the foundational condition being that if the

petitioner repeats the offense or commits any non-bailable offense which provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the Special Judge/ Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and as per their discretion, they may cancel this bail.

¶16Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶17A 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.

¶18Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

28.07.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.07.2025 Pronounced on: 28.07.2025 Parminder Singh @ Sidhu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Davneet Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen K. Sheoran, DAG, Haryana. ****