Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-37729-2025 219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37729-2025 Date of Decision: 06.08.2025 Avtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, 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. 10. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, petitioner being first offender and the other factors Jyoti Sharma 2025.08.13 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-37729-2025 peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre- trial incarceration at this stage. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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) 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. Jyoti Sharma 2025.08.13 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-37729-2025 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 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. 17. 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.” 18. 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. 19. 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. 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. Jyoti Sharma 2025.08.13 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 CRM-M-37729-2025 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 97 25.05.2025 Sadar Jagraon, 118(1), 118(2), 115(2), 3(5) District Ludhiana BNS 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 10 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by State counsel, which reads as follows: “2. That the brief facts of the case are that on 06-05-2025 complainant Kulwant Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of I lans Kalan gave statement to the police that on 04-05-2025 at about 7:30 AM he went to sell his milk and his wife Reena Kaur was cleaning the house. His neighbourer Jagdeep Singh stopped himself in front of his house with one auto and started abusing him by name. His wife Reena Kaur prevented him from abusing. Sandeep Kaur and Malkiat Kaur also came there. They have beaten his wife. In the meantime he returned back after selling his milk. That the complainant further stated that he along with his wife 3. Reena Kaur went to lodge protest to the house of Jagdeep Singh. Then Jagdeep Singh, his father Avtar Singh, his mother Malkiat Kaur and wife Sandeep Kaur entered into his house. Jagdeep Singh caught hold him. Avtar Singh gave gandasa blow on his left hand. Jagdeep Singh gave blow of Sota on his left hand. He raised noise. Then these Jyoti Sharma 2025.08.13 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-37729-2025 persons ran away from the spot along with their weapons. Sandeep Kaur and Malkiat Kaur have torn the clothes of his wife. The reason behind this occurrence is that when his wife was cleaning the house, the water was coming in the street and due to this reason they caused injuries to them. On this statement DDR No. 26 dated 07-05-2025 was recorded for awaiting x-ray report. On receipt of x-ray report, the doctor declared the injury no. 1 as grevious in nature. So on the statement of the complainant, FIR No. 97 dated 25-05-2025 u/s 118 (1), 118 (2), 115 (2) and 3 (5) BNS, 2023 was registered in PS Sadar, Jagraon against Jagdeep Singh and petitioner Avtar Singh.” 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. 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. 6. 7. 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: “H. The role of the petitioner. The petitioner has caused injury on the left hand of complainant Kulwant Singh with gandasa.” 8. The injury attributed to the petitioner is on the left hand of complainant with gandasa. However, the injury is grievous in nature. The fact remains that the petitioner is 70 years of age and has joined the investigation and being a first offender, this Court wants to give one chance to the petitioner to course correct keeping in mind his age. 9. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Decision
stand disposed of. 06.08.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Jyoti Sharma 2025.08.13 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 5