29.04.2025 MANDEEP SINGH ALIAS DEEPU v. CORAM: HON’BLE
Case Details
CRM-M-15564-2025 -1- 237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15564-2025 Reserved on : 01.04.2025 Pronounced on: 29.04.2025 MANDEEP SINGH ALIAS DEEPU ...PETITIONER STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT VERSUS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Legal Reasoning
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. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pre-trial incarceration. 8. Given 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, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 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. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 9. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory 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. 10. 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. Renu Bala 2025.04.30 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-15564-2025 -3- 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 11. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 12. The 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. 13. In 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. 14. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect 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 firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a 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 15 days and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under 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. 15. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that the petitioner surrender all his fire arms, restricts from entering the property/home/workplace of the complainant/victim and during the bail, he shall not commit any offence and in case the petitioner commits any offence in which the sentence provide is more than three year and if he indulges in any non-bailable offence, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. Renu Bala 16. 2025.04.30 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's CRM-M-15564-2025 -4- merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17. 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. 18. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Arguments
Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab. Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the complainant. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 82 01.12.2024 Kotli Surat 109, 118(1), 115(2), 191(3) Mallian, District of BNS and Sections 25 and Batala 27 of Arms Act 1. The 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. 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 reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "That, it is humbly submitted that the brief facts of the case are that the present case/FIR was registered on the statement of Taranpreet Singh son of Ajit Singh on the allegations that on 29.11.2024 at about 9:30 PM, he alongwith his brother Surinder Singh was present in his house and their neighbourer Sultan Singh son of Joginder Singh called Surinder Singh outside. When his brother Surinder Singh went outside, Sultan Singh armed with kirch, Akashdeep Singh armed with kirch, accused Sukhchain Singh armed with dang and Soni armed with dattar attacked him with intention to kill him. When he went outside to save his brother, Sultan Singh also gave kirch blow to him and Deepu son of Sultan Singh (Present petitioner) fired gun shots while Charanjit Kaur wife of Sultan Singh raised lalkaras. The motive behind the incident said to be regarding laying of soil in the street." Renu Bala 2025.04.30 16:33 4. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the CRM-M-15564-2025 -2- present FIR. He further prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. 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: "The present petitioner/accused was member of the unlawful assembly who was armed with pistol and his co-accused had caused injuries to Surinder Singh. At the time of registration of the FIR, injured Surinder Singh was unconscious who was firstly referred to Civil Hospital Gurdaspur from where he was referred to Abrol Hospital Gurdaspur and was further referred to EMS Hospital Amritsar due to serious injuries. He gains consciousness and was declared fit on 10.12.2024 and thus his statement was recorded on 10.12.2024 in which he categorically named the present petitioner/accused as one of the assailants." REASONING: 7. No injury is attributed to petitioner, allegations against the petitioner are that he fired shot from pistol, given the undertaking that he shall surrender all his fire arms, if any, he makes a case of bail. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction
Decision
disposed of. 29.04.2025 renubala Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Renu Bala 2025.04.30 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document