Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-54923-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1 CRM-M-54923-2024 Reserved on: 13.01.2025 Pronounced on: 27.01.2025 Sandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. S.S. Grewal, Advocate Ms. Preeti, Advocate and Ms. Prabhnoor Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. K.B.S. Gill, Advocate and Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the complainant. ANOOP CHITKARA, J. **** FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 97 19.06.2024 Canal Colony 307, 452, 323, 148, 149 IPC Bathinda and 25 of Arms Act (307 IPC deleted later on) 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. As per paragraph 13 of the bail petition, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. 1 144 Date 26.05.2023 307/341/294/149 Offenses IPC and 25 of Arms Act (307 IPC deleted later on) Police Station Zirakpur, Mohali SAS Nagar 3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: ANJU RANI 2025.01.28 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-54923-2024 “3. That the brief facts of the case are as under:- 2 (i). The FIR in question was registered against two accused by name i.e. (1) Sandeep Singh son of Angrej Singh (present petitioner) (2) Sukhjinder Singh @ Sukhi son of Tari Singh and unknown persons, on the statement of Tejwinder Singh son of Gurtej Singh on the allegations that the accused attemped to kill the complainant Tejwinder Singh and his mother. It was stated by the complainant that today on 19.06.2024 at about 12.00 noon the complainant was present in his house and his friend Naresh Kumar had come to meet him and he parked his vehicle along the wall of the nohra of the complainant. There is house of the accused Sandeep Singh in the street of Nohra of the complainant who used to object to the cars of the complainant parked there. When the said Naresh Kumar went to his car after meeting the complainant, then the accused Sandeep Singh took out pistol and arguing with the said Naresh Kumar. The complainant and his friend Amit Singla came out to them and the said Naresh Kumar went away. After 15-20 minutes, the accused persons called the complainant outside the house. The accused persons caused injuries to the complainant and his mother Ravinder Kaur and they also fired fireshots towards the complainant and his mother Ravinder Kaur with intention to kill them, but the complainant and his mother Ravinder Kumar escaped. (ii) As per MLR No.SG/253/MLR/JUNE/BTI/24 of the complainant- injured Tejwinder Singh, there are four injuries on his body. (iii). As per MLR No.SG/254/MLR/JUNE/BTI/24 of the injured Ravinder Kaur, there are three injuries on her body. (iv). The offence u/s 307 IPC was deleted in the FiR in question vide DDR No.52 dated 30.09.2024. (v). During the investigation conducted so far, the incriminating evidence has come on file against all the accused including the petitioner. During the investigation, it was found that on 19.06.2024, the accused caused injuries to the complainant and his mother Ravinder Kaur with their respective iron rods, after arguging with the complainant in the matter of parking of cars in the street. The accused also used pistol. The matter is under investigation.” 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. ANJU RANI 2025.01.28 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-54923-2024 5. The State’s counsel has filed the reply and mentioned the injuries received by the victim to corroborate the nature of allegations. 3 6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: “Role of the petitioner-The petitioner and co-accused caused four injuries to the complainant Tejwinder Singh and three injuries to the injured Ravinder Kaur with their respective iron rods and they also used pistol. The injuries No.1 and 4 of the complainant-injured Tejwinder Singh, caused with iron rod are attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner actively participated in the commission of crime.” 7. Petitioner’s conduct is of gunda, ruffian and Bahubali. In case, he had any problem with the parking, he should have reported to the police and filed complaint, but he took the law in his own hands. Therefore, if this conduct is accepted and petitioner is granted bail, it would send a message to the society to take law in their hands considering that State cannot rescue them and grant of bail will reinforce such perception in peoples’ mind. Thus to get anticipatory bail, factors have to be evidentiary value of the allegations and other factors have to be assessed and analyzed in and there is different perspective in comparison while considering bail of an accused who is in custody. Thus, allegations including giving beating to a lady in the neighborhood point towards not only cruelty but scratching its harmony in the neighbourhood. There is sufficient evidence inducting petitioner to the allegations. 8. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for anticipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not justify anticipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 9. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 10. Petition dismissed. Interim orders are recalled with immediate effect. All pending
Decision
applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 27.01.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: ANJU RANI 2025.01.28 17:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh 3