Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0030

11.03.2022 City Rampura, District Bathinda 324, 323, 452, 148, 149, 506 IPC and 307 IPC enhanced vide DDR No.31 of

04.04.2022

¶1The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 8 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: " 4. That as per the brief version of FIR: The brief facts of the case of prosecution are that the present case are registered on the statement of Gurwinder Singh to the effect that on 09.03.2022 there is marriage of his brother Sukhbir Singh. Due to which, they invited their neigbourers Simarjit Kaur wife of Gurmeet Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Santosh Singh all the three are Resident of Village Kothe Maha Singh in the marriage. In the late night, after DJ programme, when the family members were sleeping, and complainant alongwith his sister Sukhpreet Kaur, sister in law Simrjit Kaur and uncle Santosh Singh were talking each other in the

courtyard. Then at about 11.00/11.30 P.M, the main gate of the house was opened, lights were on, in the courtyard, then Randhir Singh @ Dhira armed with kirpan, Gurtej Singh armed with kirpan, Kuldeep Singh armed with kirpan, Bobby Singh armed with kirpan, Jagdeep Singh armed with kirpan, Jasdeep Singh armed with iron rod, Darshan Singh armed with wooden stick entered the house. Jagdeep Singh raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to Gurwinder Singh and Randhir Singh instigated others to caught hold them. Then Randhir Singh gave low of kirpan towards the complainant and which hit on the right eye brow of the complainant. Gurtej Singh gave kirpan blow towards him, the complainant tried to escape, which hit on the back of the complainant. Then Kuldeep Singh gave kirpan blow which hit on left shoulder of the complainant. The complainant fell down on the ground. In the meantime, Suman Kaur and Jagmeet Singh came at the spot. They caught hold of him. Then Bobby Singh gave a kirpan blow towards his sister Sukhpreet Kaur and due to fear, he sat down, which hit on the back side of head of his sister. Darshan Singh gave a wooden stick /soti blow on the left ankle of his sister. He caught hold hair of his sister and thrown her. In the meantime, Veerpal Kaur and Baljit Kaur while abusing, entered the house and caught hold of his sister Sukhpreet Kaur. Then Jagdeep Singh gave kirpan blow towards his sister in law Simarjit Kaur, which hit on her left arm. Then Karamjit Kaur and Rano Kaur also came at the spot to help their brother. They also caught hold his sister in law Simarjit Kaur. In the meantime Gagan Singh armed with soti came at the spot. Gagan Singh and Jagdeep Singh gave blows on the head of Santosh, which hit on his right eye and finger of left hand. They raised an alarm, then 5/7 unidentified persons also entered the house and dragged them. On hearing noise, neighbourers came at the spot. All the accused fled away from the spot while threatening them. Gurmeet Singh got them admitted in Civil Hospital, Rampura. The motive behind the occurrence is that Jagdeep Singh is of a Sharrel some nature man and he used to put pressure upon them. There are not cordial relations in the families of Randhir Singh and Simarjit Kaur, due to which they caused injuries to them."

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

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read

as follows: "Role of the petitioner

¶5That the petitioner was armed with iron and he gave the iron rod blow on the finger of the injured Santosh Singh at his finger. Evidence against the petitioner

¶6That the complainant clearly mentioned the name of the petitioner while recording his statement. Required for custodial interrogation

¶7That arrest of the petitioner is required for the custodial interrogation as the iron rod is yet be recovered from the petitioner which he used at the time of commission of crime."

¶7Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail.

¶8Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

¶9The investigation indicates that the petitioner did not cause any serious injury and hit their fingers with an iron rod. Thus, the petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-accused with a higher role.

¶10Without 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.

¶11Given 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 Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶12While 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)

¶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 petitioner is directed to join the investigation 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 Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶15Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶16Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction 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 sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the

accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.

¶17The conditions mentioned 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 Petition (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 conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."

¶18In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶19Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶20A 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.

¶21Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

14.11.2024 anju rani

No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 06.11.2024 Pronounced on: 14.11.2024 Jasdeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. ****