Arsh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-16874-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16874-2025 Reserved on: 09.07.2025 Pronounced on: 29.07.2025 Arshdeep Singh @ Arsh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. S.K. Bokolia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 197 13.11.2024 City South Moga, District Moga 111, 111(2), 308, 308(2), 308(3) of BNS 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail. 2. As per paragraph 13 of the bail petition and as per para 10 of the status report, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: “4. That the instant FIR No.197(supra) has been registered on the basis of secret information received by ASI Varinder Singh 676/Moga, CIA Staff, Moga on 13-11-2024, against i) Lakhvir Singh alias Lakhi Brar s/o Mukhtiar Singh ii) Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh s/o Paramjit Singh iii) Gurjeet Singh alias Jagga s/o Jagtar Singh iv) Hardeep Singh alias Honey s/o Charanjit Singh v) Kuldeep Singh s/o Binder Singh vi) Gardaur Singh s/o Bhalla Singh all r/o Charik and their 4/5 unknown accomplice, to the effect that the accused have made organized criminal gang and extorting money from people by making phone calls and threatening to kill them. These calls are made by Lakhvir Singh alias Lucky Brar from Canada and rest of the accused used to extortion money from the victims. Acting upon the information offence u/s 111, 111(2), 308(2), 308 BNS registered against aforesaid accused including present petitioner- Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh.” 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 JYOTI 2025.07.30 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 1 CRM-M-16874-2025 petitioner and his family. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which reads as follows: “8. Role of Petitioner: That the present petitioner was member of the gang which was working in an organized manner to extort money from their targets. The king pin of the gang known as Lakhvir Singh alias Lucky Brar used to make threatening phone calls to the victims while sitting in Canada and used demand ransom. The present petitioner on the instructions of said Lakhvir Singh were collecting the extorted money from the victims and this amount was being sent to Lakhvir Singh through co-accused Iqbal Singh and Harmeet Singh. During investigation, it has proved that the present petitioner along with co-accused went to Shanti Kumar Ghosh and received the extortion money of Rs. 2-00 lakh. 9. Evidence Against petitioner: That in order to substantiate the commission of crime, the Police joined a number of witness, including Shanti Kumar Ghosh who paid Rs.2-00 lakh as ransom to the petitioner and unequivocally proved his culpability. During investigation, the petitioner has suffered a disclosure statement which led to the recovery of extortion money. There are other material witness who made their statements and sufficient to associate the petitioner with the commission of offence.” REASONING: 7. Perusal of status report reflects that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is first offender. Whether the petitioner along with co-accused were involved in organized crime is a matter of trial. Recovery from petitioner is also stated to have been effected. 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. As per paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 13.11.2024. As per the custody certificate dated 08.07.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 07 months and 22 days. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. JYOTI 2025.07.30 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 2 CRM-M-16874-2025 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. 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 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. 13. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 14. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 15. 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. 16. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 29.07.2025 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes No. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE JYOTI 2025.07.30 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 3