Satwinder Sing er Singh alias Bagga State of Punjab Punjab and another v. ioner
Case Details
CRM-M-27540 27540-2024 (O&M) 1 204 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH CRM- Date of -M-27540-2024 (O&M) ate of decision: August 01, 2025 Satwinder Sing er Singh alias Bagga State of Punjab Punjab and another versus ioner ....Petitioner s ....Respondents CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for for the petitioner. Mr. Gurpartap Singh Bhullar, A AAG Punjab. Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior A Mr. G.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate fo enior Advocate with ate for the complainant. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed und de of led under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Proc l Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C n of r. P.C.’) for grant of concession of anticipatory ba bail to the petitioner in case FIR nder e FIR No.7 dated 13.01.2024, under Sections 304, 304, 323, 341, 506, 34 of the Indian short Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), registe registered at Police Station Badali A garh adali Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. 2. On 28.05.2024, the following ord ng order was passed: “The present petition has been the grant of anticipatory bail to the p him vide FIR No.7 dated 13.01.2024 and 34 IPC at Police Station Badali Al The learned counsel for the pe occurrence took place on 23.12.202 received injuries. The deceased passe the statement of the complainant leadin made on 25.12.2023. The post-morte pursuant to which the statement dated p FIR dated 13.01.2024. It is his content correct, no offence under Section 304 been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for for nst he petitioner in case registered against 06 024 under Sections 304, 323, 341, 506 li Ala Singh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. e petitioner inter alia contends that the the des .2023 on which date both the sides assed away on the same day. However, er, eading to the registration of the FIR was as 24, ortem was conducted on 06.01.2024, an ated 25.12.2023 was converted into an ntention that taking the allegations to be be ce, 304 IPC was made out and the offence, MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.01 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-27540 27540-2024 (O&M) 2 if any, was one under Section 323 IPC in ‘Jani Gulab Shaikh versus State 532’. ent IPC. Reliance is placed on the judgment ri) tate of Maharashtra 1970 SCC (Cri) Notice of motion. Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, A urt, h, AAG, Punjab, present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the State. Mr. G.P.S. Ghuman, Advoca Advocate and Mr. K.D.S. Bajwa, Adv A behalf of the complainant. He conten show that the petitioner had pushed th of which she fell down and suffere Therefore, his intent was to commit her I have heard the learned counse A bare perusal of the FIR wo prosecution is that the petitioner has p moot point during the course of Trial w 323 IPC or 304 IPC. At t interrogation of the petitioner is made vocate with Mr. Shivraj Daumajra, jra, on Advocate, have put in appearance on ntends that reading of the FIR would uld ed the deceased with full force because use th. ffered injuries leading to her death. it her murder. unsel for the parties. would show that the best case of the the e a has pushed the deceased. It would be a ial whether the offence is under Section ial At this stage, no case for custodial ade out. Adjourned to 13.08.2024. In the meantime, the petitione SHO/Investigating Officer to join inv arrest, he shall be released on bail o satisfaction of SHO/Investigating A conditions as envisaged under Section (i) that the petitioner sh interrogation before the inv required; (ii) that the petitioner shall n inducement, threat or promise facts of the case as to dissuade to the Court or to any police off (iii) that the petitioner shall n permission of the Court and sha tioner is directed to appear before the the investigation and in the event of his his ail on his furnishing bail bonds to the the ing g Agency, subject to the following tion 438(2) Cr.P.C.:- r shall make himself available for for en investigating officer as and when ll not, directly or indirectly make any ny mise to any person acquainted with the the cts uade him/her from disclosing such facts e officer; ior all not leave the country without prior d shall surrender his passport, if any. Meanwhile, the State is directe exact role of the petitioner and his c pending FIRs, if any, on or before the n p rected to file an affidavit/reply as to the the of his co-accused alongwith the details of the next date of hearing.” 3. Learned State counsel (on instruc suant instructions) has stated that pursuant to the order da rder dated 28.05.2024, the petitioner tion, oner has indeed joined investigation, and his custod custodial interrogation is not required uired. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the ently or the complainant has vehemently opposed the g the grant of anticipatory bail to the t the to the petitioner by arguing that the allegations ag ns against the petitioner are serious he is erious in nature and in case, he is extended the c the concession of anticipatory bail, at he bail, there is all likelihood that he may threaten eaten the witnesses as also influence th the investigation. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.01 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-27540 27540-2024 (O&M) 3 5. Having heard learned counsel fo rusal sel for the parties and upon perusal of the record ecord; especially keeping in view of ioner iew of the factum of the petitioner having joined joined investigation and State not seek of seeking custodial interrogation of the petitioner tioner and there being no material ving terial against the petitioner having misused the co the concession of interim anticipator terim ipatory bail for 01 year; the interim order dated ated 28.05.2024 is made absolute, s as lute, subject to the conditions as enumerated un . ted under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. 6. This order should not be treated l not eated as “blanket” order. It will not be read grant granting petitioner indefinite protec ll be protection from arrest. It shall be confined to th to the FIR mentioned ibid and will any d will not operate in respect of any other incident cident that involves commission of an of an offence. 7. Liberty is reserved in favour of S e for ur of State/complainant to move for cancellation/re tion/recall of this order in case the pe ition the petitioner violates any condition stipulated und d under Section 438(2) of Cr. P.C. other . P.C. or upon showing any other sufficient cau t cause. 8. Needless to say that anything ob l not ing observed herein above shall not be construed to rued to be an opinion on the merits of rits of the case. 9. Pending application(s), if any, sha
Decision
ny, shall also stand disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , 2025 August 01, 20 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Whether reportab eportable: MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.08.01 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment