Pindi v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-26783-2025 221 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26783-2025 Date of decision: 08.07.2025 Harpreet Singh @ Pindi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
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. 9. 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. Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.15 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-26783-2025 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 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. 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. 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. 14. 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. 15. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, 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 Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.15 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-26783-2025 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 fifteen 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. 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. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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 have the liberty to cancel this bail. Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.15 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-26783-2025 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 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,
Arguments
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 158 06.12.2024 Khilchian, District Amritsar Rural 115(2)/ 191(3)/ 190 of BNS 118(2)/ 351(2)/ 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 status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: “2. That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that aforesaid FIR No. 158 dated 06.12.2024 was registered on the basis of the statement of Loverjit Singh alias Lover son of Gurdev Singh, who had alleged therein that he runs a shop in main market Khilchian in the name of Sardar Jewellers and Akashdeep Singh runs an AC Fridge shop near his shop, where Jitpreet Singh works as an AC Mechanic. He further alleged that on 06.12.2024 at about 01:30 PM, he was standing outside his shop and in the meantime, the petitioner armed with a datar, Fateh Singh armed with a datar, Johnjoy armed with a datar and Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi along with two unidentified persons armed with datar came at the shop of Akashdeep Singh and started abusing him and the petitioner caused injuries on the right arm and right leg with two consecutive blows of datars and the co-accused Fateh Singh 1 Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.15 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-26783-2025 and Johnjoy caused injuries on right arm, shoulder and other body parts of Jitpreet Singh with reverse blows of their respective datars and when Raminder Singh, uncle of Akashdeep Singh came forward to rescue Akashdeep Singh, the unidentified persons caused injuries on his back with reverse blows of datar. He further alleged that the petitioner also tried to attack upon him with his datar but he escaped narrowly and he fired on the foot of the petitioner with his licensed weapon in his self defence and when the people started gathering over there, all the aforesaid accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. It was further alleged by him that the main cause of the incident was that all the aforesaid accused had earlier damaged their CCTV installed at their shops, due to which there was a dispute between them. The detailed facts mentioned by the complainant in his aforesaid statement has been reproduced in the true translation of the FIR No. 158 dated 06.12.2024attached 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 pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their 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 read as follows: “Role of the petitioner 11. That as per the version of the complainant Loverjit Singh alias Lover, the petitioner armed with datar along with the other co-accused after forming an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object attacked upon Akashdeep Singh and the injury caused upon Akashdeep Singh was declared grievous in nature.” 7. Though the petitioner has been attributed grievous injuries on the person of the complainant, but the injuries attributed to petitioner are on leg and arms. 8. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Decision
stand disposed of. 08.07.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Jyoti Sharma 2025.07.15 17:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5