Harish Singh alias Harsh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-6920-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6920-2025 Reserved on: 06.08.2025 Pronounced on: 13.08.2025 Harish Singh alias Harsh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. ****
Legal Reasoning
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0085 15.08.2024 Kabarwala, District 108 & 62 of BNS 2023
Legal Reasoning
Sri Muktsar Sahib 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. Per para 7 of the bail petition as well as custody certificate dated 05.08.2025, petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “Initially, the FIR in question was registered u/s 108,62 of BNS, 2023 against five accused namely (1) Alisha daughter of Sandeep Verma @ Sandeep Kumar, wife of Rohit Kumar (2) Sujal Verma son of Sandeep Verma @ Sandeep Kumar (3) Mamta Verma wife of Sandeep Verma @ Sandeep Kumar (4) Sandeep Verma @ Sandeep Kumar son of Hans Raj (5) Harish Singh @ Harsh son of Balveer Singh (present petitioner) on the statement of Rohit Kumar (now Deceased) son of Ravinder Kumar, on the allegations that the accused abetted the commission of suicide by the complainant Rohit Kumar (now Deceased). It was stated by the complainant that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with the accused Alisha about three years back. The accused Alisha was talking ANJU RANI 2025.08.13 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-6920-2025 2 with some unknown person, so the complainant became suspicious and he started keeping an eye on his wife and the complainant heard his wife talking with one Harsh son of unknown about illicit relations. The complainant tried to persuade his wife and he also talked with his in-laws, who all started levelling allegations against the complainant instead and they also threatened to implicate the complainant in false case if he does not shut his mouth. The complainant became mentally upset and his wife went to her parental house after quarreling with the complainant. On 13.08.2024 at about 3.00 PM, the complainant consumed some poisonous medicine at his shop and became unconscious. The family members of the complainant got admitted the complainant in the Hospital for medical treatment and the complainant is still taking medical treatment. The accused abetted the complainant to commit suicide. (ii). The complainant Rohit Kumar died on 10.09.2024 during medical treatment, so the offence u/s 62 of BNS, 2023 was deleted in the FIR in question vide DDR No. 16 dated 10.09.2024.” 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, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail, and may do so at their discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: “4. Role of the petitioner:-The petitioner and co-accused abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased Rohit Kumar. The petitioner- accused was talking with accused Alisha wife of victim Rohit Kumar over mobile phone and he was having illicit relation with the accused Alisha. Due to harassment caused by the petitioner and co-accused to the victim and threatening to implicate him in false case, the victim committed suicide. The petitioner actively participated in the commission of crime.” REASONING: 7. ANJU RANI 2025.08.13 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged CRM-M-6920-2025 3 crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. 8. Per paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 26.12.2024. Per the custody certificate dated 05.08.2025 the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 07 months & 09 days. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 13. 14. 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. 15. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the family members of victim, 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]. ANJU RANI 2025.08.13 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-6920-2025 4 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. 16. 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 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.” 17. It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the family of 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. 18. 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. 19. 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, the State shall file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned 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. 20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 21. 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 ANJU RANI 2025.08.13 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-6920-2025 5 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. 22. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 13.08.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE ANJU RANI 2025.08.13 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 5