Sajan Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-1469-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-1469-2025 Reserved on: 07.07.2025 Pronounced on: 24.07.2025 Sajan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 73 30.06.2024 Arniwala, District 307, 379B, 511, 323, 148, Fazilka 149 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act 1.
Legal Reasoning
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. In paragraph 9 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, which reads as follows: “2. The FIR in this case was registered on the statement of complainant Sandeep Kumar son of Harkrishan Chand wherein, he informed that they are two brothers and both of them are agriculturists by profession. They are holding land measuring 12 killa in addition to it, have also taken land measuring 4 killa near Dabwala Kalan stadium, on lease from owner Om Parkash and turn of water of that land falls on every Saturday at 11:30 PM. He further informed that yesterday i.e. 29.06.2024 he accompanied by his servant (siri) Davinder Kumar while riding on motorcycle make Hero Delux No.PB22-F-1842 left for Dabwala Kalan at about 10:50 PM from home and when they both reached on the bridge of minor canal ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-1469-2025 2 Arniwala, 5-6 persons blocked the road and gave signal to stop the motorcycle but, he did not stop his motorcycle, on which the aforesaid persons with muffled faces while showing kapa started signaling him to stop and out of fear he stopped the motorcycle. He further informed that then two persons from front and three persons intercepted his motorcycle from back side and asked complainant to handover whatever he is possessing. When complainant told them that he has nothing, one of the person by pointing hand on the pocket of complainant asked him to handover iphone 14 and when complainant opposed that person from doing so, one person gave kapa blow on the right leg of his siri Davinder Kumar which hit below his right knee due to which his motorcycle became imbalanced. Then one person standing on back fired from weapon like pistol on which person standing in front of him on right side started screaming. The complainant accelerated the motorcycle from the spot and at some distance from the spot, made telephonic call to his brother Vijay Kumar and father, who collected the people of nearby and informed the matter telephonically to police station. Thereafter, his father Harkrishan Lal arranged conveyance and got admitted his siri Davinder Kumar in Civil Hospital, Fazilka. Thereafter, he and his brother Vijay Kumar heard noise of some person's suffering at the bank of canal. The local police reached at the spot and said accused was got admitted in civil hospital, Fazilka. It was informed by complainant that when kapa blow was given to his siri, their motorcycle became imbalanced and he and his siri were about to fell, the person standing behind him fired from weapon like pistol with intention to kill them but the fire hit on their own associate. It was informed by complainant that if their motorcycle did not get imbalanced, the fire would have hit to him or to his siri. In the end, a prayer for taking action against the assailants has been made.” 4. The 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. Counsel further 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, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Special Judge or Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-1469-2025 this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 3 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. It would be appropriate to refer to following portion of the reply, which reads as follows:- “That the role of petitioner in commission of offence is that the petitioner/accused was one of the assailants who tried to commit robbery with the complainant but gave injury to his Siri Davinder Kumar with kapa and also fired bullet at him which landed on the petitioner. This fact has further been corroborated by the petitioner himself in his confession statement. Therefore, the petitioner cannot shirk his criminal liability.” REASONING: 7. Petitioner has handed over an order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fazilka, vide which, no charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC. 8. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime but considering the fact that no charges have been framed under Section 307 IPC and the petitioner is aged 18 years, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post- conviction sentencing. 9. Per the custody certificate dated 16.01.2025 the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 06 months & 10 days. 10. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 11. Without 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. 12. Given 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. 13. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the 3 4 CRM-M-1469-2025 attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 14. 15.
Legal Reasoning
This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. The 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. 16. Given 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. 17. Given 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. 18. The 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 ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4 5 CRM-M-1469-2025 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.” 19. It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so. 20. The 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. 21. This 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, or commits any offence under the NDPS Act, where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate, or commercial, or violates S. 19, or 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, 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. 22. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 23. A 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. 24. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 24.07.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2025.07.25 11:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 5