Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-31845-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31845-2025 Reserved on: 02.09.2025 Pronounced on: 12.09.2025 Satnam Singh @ Satpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 143 25.07.2018 Ajnala, Amritsar 326, 148, 149 IPC Rural 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. 3. Per paragraph 9 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Vide order dated 09.06.2025, the petitioner was granted interim protection and the said order is continuing till date. 4. The facts and allegations are being taken from the short reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: “2. That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that aforesaid FIR No. 143 dated 25.07.2018 was registered on the basis of the statement of Mehal Singh son of Hari Singh, who had alleged therein that on 27.06.2018 at about 08:00 PM, Major Singh armed with kirpan, Jagna Singh armed with dang, Balwinder Singh armed with dang, Gurmeet Singh armed with datar and the petitioner Satnam Singh alias Satpal Singh empty handed entered into dispute with him and the petitioner raised a lalkara to teach him a lesson for stopping them for starting the mortor and Major Singh caused injury on his head with a blow of kirpan, Gurmeet Singh caused injury on his right shoulder with blow of datar, Balwinder Singh and Jagna caused injuries on his back with blows of dang and he fell down on the ground and all the 1 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-31845-2025 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. 143 dated 25.07.2018 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.” 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 8. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the short reply. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the short reply, which read as follows: “Role of the petitioner 5. That as per the version of the complainant Mehal Singh, the petitioner being empty handed along with the other co-accused after forming an unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object attacked upon the him and caused injuries upon him. The petitioner is attributed lalkara and no injury is attributed the petitioner.” 9. The petitioner was granted interim protection by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.06.2025, and during the interregnum, there is no allegation that he had intimidated the witnesses, hampered the investigation, or, despite being called to join the investigation, did not appear before the investigator. Given the above, there would be no justification to discontinue the interim protection, which is made absolute subject to the petitioner complying with the terms of the bail order and the following additional conditions. 10. 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 Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-31845-2025 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. 11. 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.” 12. The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the petitioner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co- accused with a higher role. 13. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 14. 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. 15. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. Interim order dated 09.06.2025 is
Decision
made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 12.09.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: Jyoti Sharma 2025.09.12 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3