Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-34496-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 108 AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-34496-2025 Decided on: 07.07.2025 Kulwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM:
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. 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. 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 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. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) ANJU RANI 2025.07.10 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-34496-2025 11. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 3 12. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation 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. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner repeats the offence and 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. 15. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 16. 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. 17. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand
Arguments
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. M.K. Dhot, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 83 16.07.2024 Sadar Sangrur, 379 & 411 IPC District Sangrur 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 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, which reads as follows: “After hearing rival submissions, it has transpired that instant case FIR was registered on the statement of one Darshan Singh that he is an agriculturist and he places tools of agricultural out of house including the trolley. On 27.06.2024, he along with his family went to sleep after taking meal and on the next day, he noticed that trolley parked outside of his home was missing. He inquired about the same, but he could not find out and thereafter he came to know from CCTV cameras installed in their village that Gurtej Singh and Kulwinder Singh committed the alleged act of stealing the trolley with the help of Bolero vehicle. On recording his statement, police machinery swung into action and instant case FIR was ANJU RANI 2025.07.10 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-34496-2025 registered.” 2 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail and on instructions submits that petitioner shall not repeat the offence and if he does so, he has no objection if State files an application for cancellation of bail. 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 their family. He further submits that stolen property has already been recovered. 5. The State’s counsel opposes bail. REASONING: 6. Given the undertaking of counsel for the petitioner and the fact that recovery has already been effected, petitioner makes out a case for bail. 7. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Decision
disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 07.07.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2025.07.10 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3