Redhu v. State of Haryana
Case Details
CRM-M-38303-2025 114 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38303-2025 Date of Decision: 23.07.2025 Satish Kumar @ Redhu ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:
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, co-accused already granted bail and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre- trial incarceration at this stage. 9. 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. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 10. 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. Jyoti Sharma 2025.08.02 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-38303-2025 11. 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) 12. 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. 13. 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 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. 14. 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 Jyoti Sharma 2025.08.02 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-38303-2025 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.” 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 19. 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. 20. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Arguments
Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, D.A.G., Haryana. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 0119 11.06.2021 Ismailabad, District 308, 323, 34, 365, 506, 511 Kurukshetra IPC 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. Per paragraph 11 of the bail application, petitioner has the following criminal antecedent: Sr. No. 1. FIR No. Date 0205 06.12.2024 Offenses - Police Station - 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which reads as follows: “Statement of Jatender Singh s/o Gurbaksh Singh R/O of village Jgagheri, P.S. Ismailabad District Kurukshetra, On 09.06.2021 at around 10:00 am I was working in the fields with my uncle Balihar Singh and grandfather Darshan Singh, then I got a call from mobile number 80590-45836 saying that we have some work with you and come out of your fields to meet us, the moment I came to meet them Mangal Singh (Manga), son Sukhwinder Singh was armed with an axe and Prince Singh s/o Pargat Singh was also armed with an axe. Golu Kingra was armed with Danda and there 1 Jyoti Sharma 2025.08.02 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-38303-2025 was one another person whom I don't know. All these persons while beating tried to put me in their i-20 car and said that they would take me to some unknown place and will kill me. Hearing my screams, my uncle Balihar Singh and grandfather Darshan Singh and other residents of the village rescued me. All these persons ran away with their i-20 car, due to which my life got saved. While all the persons started saying that they all are the goons of village Malikpur, today you have escaped from us, if we meet you next time, we will not spare you. It is necessary for us to kill you. Hence I request you to save my life. Thankyou” 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. He further seeks bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Mangal Singh who has been granted bail by this Court. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail on instructions. Petitioner was not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner. Name of petitioner surfaced during the time of investigation. 7. Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The
Decision
stand disposed of. 23.07.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: Jyoti Sharma 2025.08.02 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4 (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE