Allowed

Randhir Singh Alias Dhira v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2024CRM-M/38953/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail plea in an FIR involving firing at a police party, arms recovery and heroin, based on disclosure statements of co-accused. Court granted bail on parity with co-accused despite criminal antecedents and pending proclamation proceedings, imposing stringent conditions including surrender of weapons.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail subject to furnishing bonds, joining investigation as required, and surrendering all firearms and ammunition within fifteen days of release.

Randhir Singh Alias Dhira Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-38953-2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

101+220

¶4

CRM-34997-2024 in/and CRM-M-38953-2024 Date of Decision: 02.09.2024

¶5

Randhir Singh @ Dhira

¶6

...Pe��oner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶10

Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the pe��oner.

¶11

Ms. Swa� Batra, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

(through Video-conferencing)

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶15

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta2on	Sec2ons
05	08.02.2023	State Special Opera�ons	307 IPC, 21 of NDPS Act and
		Cell,Fazilka	25 of Arms Act

¶16

CRM-34997-2024

¶17

This is an applica�on for placing on record Annexures A-1 and A-2.

¶18

Applica�on is allowed, as prayed for. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record.

¶19

CRM-M-38953-2024

¶20

The pe��oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap�oned above has come up before this Court under Sec�on 438 CrPC, 1973, seeking an�cipatory bail.

¶21

In paragraph 14 of the bail pe��on and as per status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

¶22

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Dated	Offenses	Police Sta2on
1.	05	08.02.2024	307, 341, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sec�ons 25, 27 of Arms Act	Ghal Khurd, Ferozepur
2.	211	13.12.2008	307, 34 IPC, 25, 27, 54, 59 of Arms Act	Ghall Khurd

¶23

The facts and allega�ons are being taken from the status report dated 30.08.2024 filed by the State, which reads as follows:

¶24

JYOTI 2024.09.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶25

¶26

CRM-M-38953-2024

¶27

“3. That it is a case of firing by the accused on the police party with the inten�on to kill a member of police party and recovery of 01 pistol 315 bore with live 04 cartridges, 01 pistol .45 bore plus 02 magazines plus 29 cartridges, 01 pistol 32 bore with magazine with 04 live cartridges, 01 rifle 12 bore, 24 gms. Heroin, drug money 19,04,450/-, 01 country- made pistol 315 bore plus 02 live cartridges, 01 country-made pistol 32 bore with magazine, 01 country-made pistol 315 bore and 01 Swi+ Car recovered from all co-accused (no-applicant) of the pe��oner.”

¶28

Counsel for the pe��oner seeks bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Khushal Singh, who was granted an�cipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2023 passed in CRM-M-16379-2023. The pe��oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi�ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera�on would cause an irreversible injus�ce to the pe��oner and their family.

¶29

The State’s counsel opposes the bail and refers to status report. He opposes the present pe��on on the ground that pe��oner has been declared as proclaimed offender in another case i.e. FIR No.39 dated 19.05.2022 registered under Sec�ons 307, 323, 148, 149 IPC and Sec�ons 25, 27 of Arms Act at Police Sta�on Ghal Khurd

¶30

On this, counsel for the pe��oner has drawn aDen�on to Annexure A-2 annexed with applica�on i.e. CRM-34997-2024, which is a report given by the Special Inves�ga�on Team cons�tuted with three members i.e. S.P, Dy.S.P and SHO in which they did not find any involvement of the pe��oner-Randhir Singh and Gursahib Singh in the aforesaid case i.e. FIR No.39 dated 19.05.2022 and they were declared innocent. Thus, once the pe��oner was declared innocent in a case, as such, even if he was declared a proclaimed offender, the technicali�es of proclama�on cannot come in the way to curtail his liberty which comes in the purview of fundamental right of Ar�cle 21 of the Cons�tu�on of India.

¶31

Given above, this Court would proceed to decide the bail, even if proclama�on proceedings are pending against the pe��oner. Further, a perusal of order dated 01.05.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by this Court, refers that there were four other cases pending against the co-accused Khushal Singh and this Court while gran�ng bail had considered the seriousness of allega�ons in para No.7. Even the co-accused had criminal antecedents, so has the pe��oner, as such, the criminal antecedents cannot be ground to deny bail to the pe��oner on parity.

¶32

The nature of evidence collected against the pe��oner is in the shape of disclosure statement and on the similar evidence against the co-accused Khushal Singh,

¶33

JYOTI 2024.09.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶34

¶35

CRM-M-38953-2024

¶36

this Court had granted an�cipatory bail to him, thus, pe��oner is also en�tled to bail on the ground of parity.

¶37

It would be appropriate to refer to the following por�ons of the status report, which read as follows:

¶38

“4. That the pe��oner was nominated on the basis of disclosed statement of co-accused Satwinder Singh that pe��oner Randhir Singh came to meet him in his village and they went to Mudki road with his father's licensed weapon where co-accused Roshandeep Singh met in his Swi+ Car where co-accused Avtar Singh and Gursewak Singh came there and they conspired to execute a major incident by mee�ng in restaurant Golden Taste at Mudki. So custodial interroga�on of the pe��oner is required to know about the weapons, drug as well as involvement in the present case and in other occurrences.

¶39

5. That it is most respec8ully submi9ed that a case FIR No.05, dated 08.02.2023, Under Sec�on 25/54/59 Arms Act, Sec�on 307 IPC added later vide DDR No.20, dated 08.02.2023 and Sec�on 21/61/85 NDPS Act added lateron vide DDR No.18, dated 26.02.2023, Police Sta�on, State Special Opera�on Cell, Fazilka was ini�ally registered against three accused persons namely Satwinder Singh @ Laddu, Gursewak Singh and Avtar Singh, on the basis of secret informa�on of an informer. On 07.02.2023, ASI Ninder Singh, Counter Intelligence Unit, Ferozepur along with HC Gurjinder Singh, Constable Gurbhej Singh, Constable Sunil Kumar and Constable Gurwinder Singh with I.O. Kit, Laptop and Printer etc. was present near Canal Bridge Mishriwala Mudki Road in the area of Wara Bhai Ka, Police Sta�on, Ghall Khurd on Government vehicle No.PB-05-Y1443, whose Driver was Constable-1 Narwinder Singh, in connec�on with search of suspected persons and vehicles. Then a secret informer informed that Satwinder Singh@Laddu, Gursewak Singh and Avtar Singh in connivance with some other companions had made a Gang for loo�ng/snatching and geJng ransom amount and number of cases of loo�ng/snatching were already registered against them. The secret informer further informed that today, all the above named three persons alongwith some unknown persons with huge quan�ty of Arms and Ammuni�on are siJng in a Car make Swi+ bearing No.HR-72-B-4546 at Restaurant Golden Taste, Mudki and they have to get ransom amount a+er kidnapping some rich person on the point of weapons. If immediate raid is conducted, all of them can be apprehended with Arms &

¶40

JYOTI 2024.09.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶41

¶42

CRM-M-38953-2024

¶43

Ammuni�ons. The informa�on was reliable. From the act of Satwinder Singh @ Laddu, Gursewak Singh and Avtar Singh, prima facie offence Under Sec�on 25/54/59 Arms Act made out, which resulted into registra�on of aforesaid FIR against them.

¶44

6. That a+er the registra�on of FIR, preliminary inves�ga�on of the case was conducted by ASI Ninder Singh, Counter Intelligence Unit, Ferozepur, who alongwith companions reached at the place as disclosed by the secret informer at Restaurant Golden Taste, Mudki on Faridkot Talwandi Bhai Road and conducted raid. On seeing the police party, some persons siJng in the Restaurant suddenly ran from the spot and they were chased by the police party and while running, a young man fired shots at the police party from his armed Pistol with an inten�on to kill and in return, in order to put pressure and to put them under fear, Constable-1 Narwinder Singh made fire shot from his service Revolver .38 bore on the leg of accused, which hit on the le+ leg of the person who had made the fire shot, due to which, he fell down and was apprehended by the police and he disclosed his name as Satwinder Singh @ Laddu and the second person apprehended by the police revealed his name as Gursewak Singh and the third person, who managed to abscond from the spot was iden�fied as Avtar Singh. A Pistol 45 bore was recovered from the right hand of Satwinder Singh @Laddu and on unloading its Magazine, 03 live cartridges of .45 bore were found in it. A Magazine .45 bore duly loaded was recovered from the shirt of accused Satwinder Singh @ Laddu and on unloading its Magazine, 05 live cartridges were found in it. In addi�on to this, 21 live cartridges of .45 bore were also recovered from a small bag from the internal pocket of the Jacket of accused Satwinder Singh @ Laddu. A parcel of the recovered Pistol of .45 bore with 02 Magazines was prepared and another parcel of 29 live cartridges of .45 bore was separately prepared, which were sealed by ASI Ninder Singh with his seal having words "NS". The accused Satwinder Singh @ Laddu being injured was admi9ed in Civil Hospital, Ferozepur for treatment. From the personal search of accused Gursewak Singh, a country made Pistol of .315 bore duly loaded was recovered from him and on unloading it, one live cartridge of .315 bore was found in its chamber. Besides this, 03 live cartridges of .315 bore were recovered from the right pocket of his Pent. A parcel of recovered Pistol of .315 bore was prepared and another parcel of 04 live cartridges of .315 bore was separately prepared, which were sealed by ASI Ninder Singh with his seal having words "NS". During search, one empty shell of .45 bore in respect

¶45

JYOTI 2024.09.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶46

¶47

CRM-M-38953-2024

¶48

of the fire shot made by accused Satwinder Singh @ Laddu from his .45 Pistol on the police party was recovered at the spot, which was put in a plas�c box and separate parcel of the same was prepared, which was sealed by ASI Ninder Singh with his seal having words "NS". Sample seal was separately prepared and a+er use, the seal was handed over to C-1 Narwinder Singh. Car make Swi+ VDI bearing No.HR-72-B-4546 was taken into police custody, which is registered in the name of one Harmeen Sandhu. Accused Gursewak Singh and Satwinder Singh @ Laddu were arrested at the spot on 07.02.2023. Site plan of the spot was prepared. Offence under Sec�on 307 IPC was enhanced in the FIR vide DDR No.20, dated 08.02.2023. Best efforts were made to arrest the third accused namely Avtar Singh and raids were also conducted in this regard, who was absconding.

¶49

7. That during interroga�on on 09.02.2023, accused Gursewak Singh had stated that the correct name of the third person who absconded from the spot is Khushal Singh and he is also known as Avtar Singh. Gursewak Singh further stated that Khushal Singh @ Avtar Singh had given one country made Pistol .315 bore alongwith 02 cartridges to one Baljinder Singh @ Bobby. Accordingly, vide DDR No.15, dated 21.02.2023, Baljinder Singh @ Bobby was nominated as accused in the FIR and he was arrested on the same day i.e. 21.02.2023 and during interroga�on, on his disclosure statement recorded Under Sec�on 27 of Evidence Act, one country made Pistol .315 bore alongwith 02 live cartridges were recovered from him. 8. That during interroga�on on 23.02.2023, accused Satwinder Singh @ Laddu recorded his disclosure statement Under Sec�on 27 of the Evidence Act that on 07.02.2023, Randhir Singh @ Dhira (pe��oner) came to his house to meet him. Then accused Avtar Singh @ Khushal Singh made phone call to him and desired to meet him and Satwinder Singh @ Laddu told Avtar Singh to come at Mudki in the evening. Then accused Satwinder Singh @ Laddu secretly took the Licensed Pistol.45 bore and cartridges of his father without telling his father and any other family member and he along with pe��oner Randhir Singh @Dhira reached at Mudki-Lohan Road, where Roshandeep Singh @ Roshan was standing with his Car make Swi+ No.HR-72-4546 and accused Avtar Singh @ Khushal Singh and Gursewak Singh came there in a Swi+ Car and all of them sat at Golden Taste Restaurant, Mudki and were planning to commit some occurrence. Accordingly, vide DDR No.19, dated 23.02.2023, both Randhir Singh @ Dhira (pe��oner) and Roshandeep Singh @ Roshan were nominated as

¶50

JYOTI 2024.09.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶51

¶52

CRM-M-38953-2024

¶53

accused in the FIR.”

¶54

The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu�on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing the same for the bail stage.

¶55

Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega�ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus�fiability for custodial interroga�on or the pre-trial incarcera�on at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and condi�ons men�oned in this order. Given the penal provisions invoked, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega�ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus�fiability for pre-trial incarcera�on at this stage.

¶56

Without commen�ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men�oned above, the pe��oner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the �me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶57

Given above, provided the pe��oner is not required in any other case, the pe��oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap�oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa�sfac�on of the Arres�ng Officer, and if the maDer is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep�ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa�sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶58

While furnishing a personal bond, the pe��oner shall men�on the following personal iden�fica�on details:

¶59

1.	AADHAR number
2.	Passport number (If available) and when the
	aDes�ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3.	Mobile number(If available)
4.	E-Mail id(If available)

¶60

The pe��oner is directed to join the inves�ga�on as and when called by the Inves�gator. The pe��oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec�on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The pe��oner shall join the inves�ga�on as and when called by the Inves�ga�ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves�ga�on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu�on will be

¶61

JYOTI 2024.09.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶62

¶63

CRM-M-38953-2024

¶64

open to seeking cancella�on of the bail. During the inves�ga�on, the pe��oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶65

This order is subject to the pe��oner’s complying with the following terms. The pe��oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi�ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe��oner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court.

¶66

Given the nature of the allega�ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe��oner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the vic�m un�l the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condi�on to rule out any aDempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic�m. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves�ga�on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna BhaD v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶67

Given the background of allega�ons against the pe��oner, it becomes paramount to protect the vic�m, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacita�ng the accused would be one of the primary op�ons un�l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiDal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restric�on is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanc�on]. Given the nature of the allega�ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe��oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni�on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiNeen days from release from prison and inform the Inves�gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe��oner shall be en�tled to renew and take it back in case of acquiDal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restric�ng firearms would ins�ll confidence in the vic�m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea�ng the offense.

¶68

The condi�ons men�oned 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 Pe��on (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds

¶69

JYOTI 2024.09.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶70

¶71

CRM-M-38953-2024

¶72

that “The bail condi�ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor�onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condi�ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi�ons that would result in the depriva�on of rights and liber�es must be eschewed.”

¶73

Any observa�on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶74

A cer�fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe��oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aDest it to be a true copy. If the aDes�ng officer wants to verify its authen�city, such an officer can also verify its authen�city and may download and use the downloaded copy for aDes�ng bonds.

¶75

Pe22on allowed in terms men�oned above. All pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

¶76

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 02.09.2024 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶77

JYOTI 2024.09.06 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶78

Randhir Singh Alias Dhira v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Randhir Singh Alias Dhira v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Karamjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sukhdev Singh Alias Babbi Bhaleria Vs State of Punjab

Sanju and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Mudgil Vs State of Haryana

Veena Rani Vs State of Punjab and Ors.