Bihari v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-8121-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8121-2025 Reserved on: 01.09.2025 Pronounced on: 09.09.2025 Gurpawandeep Singh @ Bihari ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Viresh Dahiya, Advocate and Mr. Vicky Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 120 27.05.2023 Jandiala, Amritsar 307, 452, 34 IPC and 25, 27, 54, 59 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. As per para 20 of the bail petition and as per para 13 of the status report, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. 1. 12 Dated 11.01.2016 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 37 11 127 27.03.2014 21.09.2016 10.08.2016 342 02.08.2016 123 27.06.2012 122 27.05.2023 358 2022 Offenses 353, 186, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC 399, 402, 411 IPC 25 of Arms Act 302, 364, 148, 149 IPC read with 25 of Arms Act 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC read with 25 of Arms Act 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC read with Section 25 of Arms Act 21 of NDPS Act read with Section 25 of Arms Act 174-A IPC Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar City Kambo, Amritsar (Rural) SSOC Amritsar City Sadar Tarn Taran Civil Lines, Amritsar City Jandiala, Amritsar (Rural) Jandiala, Amritsar (Rural) Civil Lines, Amritsar 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-8121-2025 which reads as follows: “2. That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that aforesaid FIR No.120 dated 27.05.2023 was registered on the basis of the statement of Akashdeep Singh alias Budhu son of Manjit Singh, who had alleged therein that on 26.05.2023, he along with his mother Baljinder Kaur was present at his house and at about 12:30 PM, he heard noise outside his house and he saw in the light of bulb that the petitioner, co-accused Hardev Singh alias Deba and Sahib Singh trespassed into his house by jumping through boundary wall and thereafter the petitioner, with an intention to kill him, fired at him with his pistol but he escaped unhurt and when he raised hue and cry for help, all the aforesaid accused fled away from the spot. The detailed facts mentioned by the complainant in his aforesaid statement has been reproduced in the true translation of the FIR No.120 dated 27.05.2023 attached with the petition as Annexure P-1, which may kindly be read as a part of this paragraph as same are not repeated for the sake of brevity.” 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 his family. 5. The petitioner’s counsel 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. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to following portions of the status report, which reads as follows: “The evidence against the petitioner 9. That the evidence available against the petitioner is in the form of oral statement of the complainant along with the statements of the other witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Role of the petitioner 10. That as per the version of the complainant Akashdeep Singh, the petitioner after sharing a common intention with the co-accused Hardev Singh and Sahib Singh trespassed into his house and the petitioner fired at him but he escaped unhurt.” REASONING: 7. Allegations against the petitioner are that he fired upon complainant Akashdeep Singh but victim escaped unhurt. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-8121-2025 8. As per paragraph 6 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 27.05.2023. As per the custody certificate dated 30.08.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 02 years and 03 months. 9. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, there is no injury to anybody, 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 the 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 or duty Magistrate, with or without sureties, with a maximum bond amount not to exceed INR 10,000. 12. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, the surety is capable of producing the accused. However, instead of surety, the petitioner may provide a fixed deposit of INR 10,000/-, with a clause that the interest shall not be accumulated in FD, either drawn from a State-owned bank or any bank listed on the National Stock Exchange and/or Bombay Stock Exchange, in favour of the “Chief Judicial Magistrate” of the concerned Sessions Division; or a fixed deposit made in the name of the petitioner, with similar terms and with endorsement from the banker stating that the FD shall not be encumbered or redeemed without the permission of the concerned trial Court, or until the surety bond has been discharged. 13. 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) 14.
Legal Reasoning
This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 15. 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 JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3 CRM-M-8121-2025 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 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 JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4 CRM-M-8121-2025 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, 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. 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. In Amit Rana v. State of Haryana, CRM-18469-2025 [Decided on 05.08.2025), in CRA-D-123-2020], a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in paragraph 13, holds that “To ensure that every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or whose sentence has been suspended gets back their liberty without any delay, it is appropriate that whenever the bail order or the orders of suspension of sentence are not immediately sent by the Registry, computer systems, or Public Prosecutor, then in such a situation, to facilitate the immediate restoration of the liberty granted by any Court, the downloaded copies of all such orders, subject to verification, must be accepted by the Court before whom the bail bonds are furnished.” 24. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 09.09.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. JYOTI 2025.09.09 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 5