Sukhpal Singh v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 107 14.08.2024 Kot Ise Khan, Dis.. Moga 118 (1), 115 (2), 125, 191 (3), 190, 324 BNS and Sec!on 27 of Arms Act

¶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 11 of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. That brief facts of the case are that complainant got recorded his statement with the police on 13.08.2024 that he alongwith his son Jaskaranpreet Singh aged about 17 years were returning from their fields at about 10.15 PM when they reached near the fields of Jagjit Singh @ Juggu son of Ranjit Singh, then Jagjit Singh @ Juggu called the complainant and asked him to stop the motorcycle. Gurjant Singh @ Vicky son of Balkar Singh armed with dang, Sukhwinder Singh @ Laddi son of Balvir Singh armed with Dang were also accompanied with said Jagjit Singh @ Juggu. All of them were in drunkard condi2on and they started order/judgment. 1 arguing with the complainant and his son without any reason. Therea3er Sukhwinder Singh @ Laddi gave a blow of his dang, which hit on the motorcycle of the complainant, due to which motorcycle of the complainant was damaged. The complainant and his son alighted from the motorcycle, then Gurjant Singh gave a blow of his dang, which hit on the right eye of Jaskaranpreet Singh. With inten2on to save themselves, complainant and his son ran away towards their house. A3er reaching at their house, the complainant narrated all these facts to his father. Then father of the complainant alongwith Angrej Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Bhupinder Singh went to the house of Jagjit Singh for complaining about the same. They found that Jagjit Singh was found present at the main gate of his house. Jagjit Singh started arguing with the father of the complainant. Accused Jagjit Singh took out his revolver from his three and fired three shots in air. Pargat Singh son of Mehal Singh armed with sword, Gurjant Singh @ Vicky son of Balkar Singh armed with kirch, Sukhwinder Singh @ Laddi son of Balvir Singh armed with dang, Gurmej Singh s/o Mehal Singh armed with sword, Lakhwinder Singh s/o Balkar Singh armed with axe, Sukhwinder Singh s/o Bishan Singh armed with sword, all residents of Kot Sadar Khan, District Moga and 7/8 unknown persons came there. Accused Jagjit Singh raised lalkara and directed his companions not to allow the complainant and others to return safely. Pargat Singh gave a kirch blow which hit on the finger of the right hand of the complainant. Sukhwinder Singh gave a blow of his dang which hit on the le3 side of the head of complainant. Gurjant Singh @ Vicky gave a blow of his kirch which hit on the back near waist of the complainant. Accused persons have also caused injuries on persons of Man Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Bhupinder Singh. On raising hue and cry all the accused run away from the spot alongwith their respec2ve weapons.

¶4That as per MLRNo. MKS/126/2024/Moga, pertaining to Daljit Singh s/o Man Singh there were three injuries, injury no.1 was sharp and remaining injuries were simple in nature and injury no.1 was kept under observa2on. As per MLR No.MKS/125/2024 pertaining to Gurpreet Singh son of Ajaib Singh there were 8 injuries, on his person, out of which injuries no.1, 6 and 7 were kept under observa2on and injuries no.2, 3, 4 and 5 were declared as simple. As per MLR No.MKS/127/2024 pertaining to Bhupinder Singh, there were 3 blunt injuries on his person out of which injuries no.1 and 2 were kept under observa2on whereas injury no.3 was declared as simple. As per MLR No. MKS/124/2024 dated 14.08.2024 order/judgment. pertaining to Man Singh there were total 5 blunt injuries on his person and all were kept under observa2on. However, said Man Singh was referred to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital by the Doctor."

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family.

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

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read as follows: "5. That on the basis of statement of Gurjeet Kaur wife of Ranjit Singh resident of Kot Sadar Khan, cross version vide DDR No.22 Dated

15.08.2024 u/s 115(2), 191 (3) and 190 BNS was registered against Man Singh s/o Mukh2ar Singh, Daljit Singh son of Man Singh, Bhupinder Singh s/o Balbir Singh and Gurpreet Singh son of Ajaib Singh with the allega2ons that on 13.08.2024 she was present at her house then at about 10.30 PM his son Jagjit Singh returned to house on his motorcycle. A3er entering into the house, he locked the door from inside. A3er some2me gate of their house was knocked. She saw through the window and found that Man Singh armed with Gandasi, Daljit Singh armed with Dang, Bhupinder Singh armed with Dang, son of Bhupinder Singh armed with dang, Gurpreet Singh s/o Ajaib Singh armed with dang and 8-9 uniden2fied persons were standing in the street and all of them were calling Jagjit Singh. Then complainant and her son opened the gate and went into street. Jagjit Singh requested said Man Singh that they will discuss the maCer tomorrow. Then Daljit Singh gave blow of his dang, then Jagjit Singh immediately went into his house and locked the door from inside. Gurjeet Kaur tried to make said persons as understand, then son of Bhupinder Singh gave blow of his dang, which hit on the head of Gurjeet Kaur, due to which she fell down on the ground. Then Daljit Singh and his companions tried to enter into the house by jumping the door, then Jagjit Singh fired shots in air with his licensed weapon, then people started gathering there, due to which said accused ran away from the spot. During said occurrence Sukhpal Singh son of Bishan Singh also received injuries on his person. As per MLR of Gurjeet Kaur, there was one order/judgment. 3 blunt simple injury on her person. Whereas as per MLR of Sukhpal Singh were was one sharp injury on his person. However, said Sukhpal Singh refused to take any ac2on against anybody regarding his injury.

¶8Role of the pe22oner: Ini2ally on 13.08.2024 at about 10.30 PM, the pe22oner and his co-accused have caused injuries on the persons of Man Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Daljit Singh. At that 2me pe22oner was armed with sword. Two injuries on persons of Man Singh were declared as grievous and said injuries were aCributed to Pargat Singh and Lakhwinder Singh. Whereas, remaining injuries are simple in nature."

¶7The pe!!oner's counsel submits that the following injuries are a.ributed to the accused: Accused name Weapon Injury a6ributed Sukhpal Singh Nil Not named in the FIR (known to each other, that is why pe!!oner named)

¶8There are cross cases, and at this stage, it might be unsafe to assume which party was the aggressor and ini!ator of the occurrence.

¶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 would be no jus!fiability for custodial interroga!on or the pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage.

¶11Without 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. This order shall come into force from the !me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶12Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the Arres!ng Officer, and if the ma.er is before a Court, order/judgment. 4 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.

¶13While 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 a.es!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶14This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms. The 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.

¶15The pe22oner is directed to join the inves2ga2on 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 Inves2gator. 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.

¶16Given 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 a.empt 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 Bha. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶17Given the background of allega!ons against the pe!!oner, it becomes paramount to protect the vic!m, and their family members, as well as the members of order/judgment. 5 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 acqui.al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restric!on is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond 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 fiKeen days from release from prison and inform the Inves!gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe!!oner shall be en!tled to renew and take it back in case of acqui.al in this case, provided otherwise permissible in 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.

¶18The condi!ons men!oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Pe!!on (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 condi!ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor!onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condi!ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi!ons that would result in the depriva!on of rights and liber!es must be eschewed."

¶19In 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.

¶20This 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.

¶21Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the order/judgment. 6 case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶22A 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 a.est it to be a true copy. If the a.es!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 a.es!ng bonds.

¶23Petition allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

29.11.2024 Jyoti-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 13.11.2024 Pronounced on: 29.11.2024 Sukhpal Singh ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab. ****