Harjot Singh Alias Harry v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 80 30.06.2024 Urban Estate, Patala, Dis4. 364, 342, 323, 506, 120-B IPC Patala and 25 of Arms Act

¶1The pettoner apprehending arrest in the FIR captoned above has come up before this Court under Secton 482 of Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking antcipatory bail.

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

¶3The facts and allegatons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. That it is respec>ully submited that the present case/FIR No. 80 (supra) was registered pursuant to the statement dated 30.06.2024 of Rahul Sharma (complainant), sta*ng therein that he was engaged in the occupa*on of plying E-Rickshaw. On 28.06.2024, at about 2 PM, when he going to his house, Eknoor son of Harjot Singh alias Harry hit his scooty on JYOTI his E-Rickshaw by driving towards it. Subsequent thereto, they had an order/judgment. 1 alterca*on with each other and therea5er, the colony residents sent them to their respec*ve houses by persuading them. Then on 29.06.2024 at about 10:30 AM, as per his daily rou*ne, he was present outside New Bus Stand on his E-Rickshaw wai*ng for passengers, in the mean*me, Harjot Singh alias Harry (present pe**oner) along with 7-8 unknown persons came at the spot and started hurling abuses to him by saying that how dare he entered into alterca*on with his son Eknoor. Therea5er, pe**oner alongwith his 7-8 accomplices gave bea*ngs on the person of complainant and forcibly made the complainant sit in their white coloured car. When the complainant started raising alarm, then the pe**oner took out the pistol and pointed it on the forehead of complainant and threatened that he would fire arm shot if he (complainant) would raise any alarm. Then the pe**oner *ed a piece of cloth on the eyes of complainant by making him sit in their legs and then drove the car and all the abovesaid persons started giving bea*ngs on his person. On the way, a5er about a period of 1 hour, the aforemen*oned persons un*ed cloth from the eyes of complainant and pe**oner made a video call to one Vishal alias Mithe Chol and said that they had kidnapped Rahul (complainant), upon which, Vishal alias Mithe Chol said that he should not be le5 unhurt that day. Therea5er, the aforemen*oned persons again gave him bea*ngs and said that he should not be le5 alive on that day. Therea5er, the pe**oner atacked on the head of complainant and his accomplices gave a number of blows on his body and chest, due to which, complainant became unconscious. Then the pe**oner alongwith his accomplices threw the complainant on the passage in injured and unconscious condi*on and a5er that he was admited in AIIMS Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh) with the help of passers-by. Hence, present case/FIR was registered against the aforemen*oned Harjot Singh alias Harry (pe**oner), Vishal alias Mithe Chol and 7-8 unknown persons.

¶4That during the course of inves*ga*on, the complainant came present before the inves*ga*ng officer on 03.07.2024 and recorded his supplementary statement to the effect that he was thrown in the unconscious condi*on by the accused persons above Ropar in Himachal and the passers-by and local police helped him and admited him in AIIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. The complainant further stated that he had come to know that the pe**oner had used his car in the offence, which was Er*ga bearing registra*on no. PB-11-DE-8837 and the unknown accomplices JYOTI were Mohit, Munish Kumar, Billa, Karan, Rohit and Saurav. Accordingly, order/judgment. 2 the aforemen*oned persons were arrayed as accused in the present case/FIR."

¶4The pettoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the pettoner and their family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. Counsel for the complainant also opposes the bail.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the reply, which read as follows: "8. ROLE OF PETITIONER: That the pe**oner alongwith his accomplices gave bea*ngs on the person of complainant, then kidnapped him from New Bus Stand Pa*ala and threw him above Ropar in Himachal in unconscious condi*on.

¶9Evidence against the pe**oner: That from the perusal of pen drive (Annexure R-1), it is clearly evident that the pe**oner was driving the car and other co-accused were siGng in the car"

¶7Perusal of the petton indicates that the complainant had borrowed money from the pettoner which was not returned by the complainant despite several requests. On

28.06.2024, the Pettoner's son hit the complainant on his e-rickshaw with a scooter which resulted in an altercaton between them. The following day, the Pettoner along with the other accused individuals, allegedly confronted and physically assaulted the complainant. Moreover, the pettoner was in possession of a pistol, which he used to threaten the complainant, compelling him to enter his white car and preventng him from raising an alarm.

¶8State counsel has drawn the a4enton of this Court to a video recording which was recorded by the accused themselves probably with a view of extortng money. The footage shows the complainant already injured while being assaulted, suggestng that he had already been subjected to cruelty and mistreatment. As per the video recording, one individual is seen driving the car, and the State's reply identfies this person as the pettoner. Additonally, the video depicts a co-accused aggressively abusing and mercilessly beatng the complainant, who visibly appeared to be injured with several bruises. Although the pettoner is not seen physically assaultng the complainant, he is the main accused in this case, and he neither stopped the co-accused from beatng the complainant, nor stopped the car to help the complainant nor drove to the police order/judgment. 3 staton. This inacton clearly suggests his complicity and acquiescence of the complainant's mistreatment.

¶9The depicton of cruelty in the video, coupled with the doctor's statement which notes six blunt-force bruises on the complainant, clearly indicates that he was subjected to mistreatment. Furthermore, the video captures the accused individuals not only commiGng the assault but also displaying a sense of pride in their actons as they were recording the incident, posing before the camera and boastng while repeatedly a4acking the injured complainant which indicates no remorse. This further indicates their cruel intent to harm the complainant who appeared to be defenseless. Additonally, the State's reply states that the complainant was abandoned in an unconscious state on a passage, from where passers-by took him to AIIMS Bilaspur, which only adds on to the inhumane treatment of the complainant.

¶10Cruelty, in any form, erodes the moral fabric of society and is a threat to the principles of humanity and justce. When cruelty is normalized or leJ unchecked, it sends a wrong message to society as it emboldens individuals to exploit and harm others without facing any consequences. Cruelty furthermore violates the inherent dignity and rights of individuals that are consttutonally protected. The deterrence of such cruel and inhumane behavior is crucial to preserve basic rights of individuals and create awareness amongst society.

¶11There is sufficient prima facie evidence connectng the pettoner with the crime, his involvement, and his complete knowledge; thus, he is not enttled to bail.

¶12A perusal of the bail petton and the documents a4ached prima facie points towards the pettoner's involvement and does not make out a case for antcipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not justfy antcipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pettoner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶13Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶14Petition dismissed. Interim orders are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applicatons, if there are any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

30.01.2025 Jyoti-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 15.01.2025 Pronounced on: 30.01.2025 Harjot Singh @ Harry ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Hardeep Singh Saini, Advocate, for the pettoner. (through video conferencing). Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate for the complainant. ****