The High Court
Case Details
CRM-M-1172-2025 -1- 339 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-1172-2025 Reserved on: 01.08.2025 Pronounced on: 28.08.2025 INDERJOT SINGH ...PETITIONER STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT VERSUS
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Neha Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 44 08.02.2024 Dera Bassi, District 279/186/307/427/34 of IPC, S.A.S. (Mohali) Nagar 1860 (Sections 337/338/304- A IPC added later on) 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. 3. Per paragraph 17 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The facts and allegations are being taken from the short reply dated 07.05.2025 filed by the State, which reads as follows: “That briefly stated the above mentioned FIR (Annexure P-3) has been registered with the allegations that on 08.02.2024 the police party headed by ASI Gaurav Sharma 1276 P.P. Mubarikpur along with other police officials had laid a naka at T-point Deha colony Trivedi Camp Mubarikpur in relation to suspicious and notorious persons along with Govt. Car No. PB 65 M 1367. At about 07:45 P.M. one Scorpio Car colour white driven by petitioner came at the spot which was signaled to stop but the petitioner-driver of the car driving negligently and rashly tried to run over the police party with intention to kill
Decision
them. In view of the above situation the police party swiftly went a side to save their lives and the said offending vehicle struck with barricade laid at naka as well as hit the Govt. car PB 65-1367 and the driver of the said offending Scorpio car No. PB 65, AU 8145 ran away with his car towards Shinda Stadium on reverse gear. Co-accused Sukhjinder Singh was also sitting in the car with the Petitioner. The petitioner-driver driving his car negligently and rashly trying to run over the police party with intention to kill them and on the instigation of co- Renu Bala 2025.08.28 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-1172-2025 -2- accused Sukhjinder Singh sitting aside petitioner, having committed the offences under Section 279, 186, 307, 427, 34 IPC the present FIR Annexure P-3 was registered in accordance to law after completing necessary formalities. It is also submitted that while running away from the spot, on the way, the said car also hit another car Etios No. PB 65 AW 2589 and damaged the said car and the driver of the said Car namely Babita suffered serious injuries in the said accident. The said injured Babita was shifted to S.D. Civil Hospital Derabassi but in view of her serious condition she was referred to GMCH Section 32 Chandigarh from where she was further referred to PGI Chandigarh but due to the injuries suffered in the said accident, said Babita expired during treatment on 20.02.2024 and as such the offence under Section 337,338 and 304-A IPC were also added in the FIR Annexure P-3.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was not named in the FIR. He further submits that petitioner is in custody since 08.02.2024. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions including surrender of fire arms, if any. In case, he repeats the offence where the sentence prescribed is more than 07 years, he would have no objection, if State files an application for cancellation of his bail. He further contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and submits that present petition is second petition for bail as earlier petition filed by petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 09.05.2024 on merits and there is no change in the interregnum. The said order was assailed before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and SLP filed by the petitioner stands dismissed on 01.08.2024 and refers to para 10 of the reply, which read as follows: “xxx xxx xxx xxx 10. That from the evidence collected during investigation, the offences as mentioned in FIR are clearly made out against petitioner. There is sufficient incriminating evidence against petitioner. The allegations against the petitioner are serious and grave. The petitioner had actively participated in the commission of crime. The petitioner attacked upon the police party while standing at the police naka laid and they also caused death of deceased Babita by committing serious accident. The petitioner has intentionally and deliberately attacked on the naka party by not stopping their vehicle despite signaled and by hitting the police barricades as well as the vehicles which they damaged. The petitioner tried to kill the police party members and therefore, in view of seriousness of allegations, the petitioner do not deserve concession of bail and therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed.” REASONING: 6. Allegations against the petitioner are that he tried to run the vehicles over police Renu Bala 2025.08.28 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document officials who signalled the petitioner to stop the vehicle. When the police officials saved CRM-M-1172-2025 -3- themselves, he ran over the vehicle on one of the passerby who died at the spot. Conduct of the petitioner is so heinous, he cannot be granted benefit of bail. 7. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would not justify bail.(cid:1) Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 8. Given the sentence provided for the offence, petitioner’s custody is not so excess that he be granted bail on prolonged custody i.e. he is behind bar since 08.02.2024. 9. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 10. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 28.08.2025 renubala Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. Renu Bala 2025.08.28 13:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document