Allowed

Varinder Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Nov 2024CRM-M/43764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought regular bail in an FIR registering offences under Sections 307, 324, 323, 148, 149, 120-B IPC, and Arms Act. The Court allowed bail, noting the petitioners' lack of criminal antecedents and prolonged pre-trial incarceration, while imposing conditions regarding witness protection and surrender of weapons.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing bonds and compliance with conditions regarding personal identification, witness protection, and surrender of arms.

Varinder Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-43764-2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-43764-2024 Reserved on: 04.11.2024 Pronounced on: 08.11.2024

¶5

Varinder Singh and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶11

Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶15

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
87	18.05.2024	Ajnala, Amritsar Rural	307, 324, 323,	148,	149, 120-B
			IPC (Section	326	IPC added
			later on)	and	Sections
			25/27/54/59 of	Arms	Act

¶16

The petitioners incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶17

2. As per paragraph 11 of the reply, the accused have no criminal antecedents.

¶18

The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

¶19

“2. That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that aforesaid FIR No.

¶20

87 dated 18.05.2024 was registered on the basis of the statement of Lovely Kumar son of Harjinder Kumar, who had alleged therein that on 18.05.2024, he was drinking sugarcane juice on the roadside at Bhakha Hari Singh and about 02:15 PM, one Audi Car No. CH01- 4781 came from Ajnala side and the petitioner No. 2 Amandeep Singh was driving the aforesaid car and Sartaj Singh was sitting on the next seat and the coaccused Sukhdev Singh, Varinder Singh (petitioner No. 2) and Bunty were sitting on the back seat, who on seeing him stopped and alighted from the car and the co-accused Sukhdev Singh raised a lalkara to catch hold of

¶21

ANJU RANI 2024.11.08 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-43764-2024

him and the petitioner No. 1 Varinder Singh caused injury on his right wrist with a blow of a kirpan. He further alleged that thereafter Sartaj Singh pulled out his pistol but the pistol misfired and the petitioner No. 2 Amandeep Singh fired upon him with his pistol and one bullet hit him on the fingers of his left hand and one bullet hit on the ground near his feet and thereafter Sartaj Singh again fired upon him with an intention to kill him but he escaped himself by fleeing away from the spot and all the aforesaid accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. The detailed facts mentioned by Lovely Kumar in his aforesaid statement has been reproduced in the true translation of the aforesaid FIR No. 87 dated 18.05.2024 attached with the petition as Annexure P-1, which may kindly be read as a part of present paragraph as same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.”

¶26

The petitioners' counsel refers to para 4 of the bail petition, which reads as follows:

¶27

“That it is very much apparent from the FIR that the Petitioner No 2 has been alleged two gun shots were fired by him, out of which one gun shot hit the fingers of the left hand of complainant, the entire story of the complainant is concocted and the allegations are fabricated. no, shots were fired by the petitioner, no.2, whereas the fact petitioner has fired remains a shot neither that nor the there is any injury. The Copy of the MLR of the complainant is also annexed herewith as Annexure P-2.”

¶28

The petitioners' counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioners and their family.

¶29

The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

¶30

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

¶31

“6. That during the investigation, the petitioner No. 2 Amandeep Singh was arrested on 24.05.2024 and the pistol used by him in the alleged occurrence was recovered at his instance from his house pursuant to his disclosure statement dated 24.05.2024, which was taken into police possession vide recovery memo dated 24.05.2024.

¶32

7. That during the investigation, the complainant Lovely Kumar recorded his supplementary statement dated 16.06.2024, alleging therein that on 18.05.2024, the petitioner No. 1 Varinder Singh was armed with a kirpan and he caused injury on his right wrist with a blow of a kirpan and

¶33

ANJU RANI 2024.11.08 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-43764-2024

thereafter Sartaj Singh fired at him with an intention to kill him but he saved his life by hiding himself behind the car and thereafter Varinder Singh caused injury on his hands and fingers with a blow of kirpan and the petitioner No. 2 Amandeep Singh also fired at him but he escaped from there by fleeing away from the spot.

¶38

Evidence against the petitioners

¶39

8. That the evidence against the petitioner is in the form of oral statement of the complainant Lovely Kumar recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, which is corroborated with his Medico-Legal Report.”

¶40

There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.

¶41

There is no certain evidence of firearm injury. Further, even the complainant is a history sheeter, whereas there are no similar allegations against the petitioners.

¶42

As per synopsis given by petitioners’ counsel, petitioner No.1 is in custody from 19.05.2024 and petitioner No.2 is in custody from 23.05.2024 and accordingly their total custody is approximately 06 months in this FIR. Given the penal provisions invoked viza-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

¶43

The investigation indicates that the petitioners are not the main accused, so the petitioners' bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other coaccused with a higher role.

¶44

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioners make a case for bail.

¶45

Given above, provided the petitioners are not required in any other case, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶46

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioners shall mention the

¶47

following personal identification details:

¶48

1. AADHAR number

¶49

2. Passport number (If available) and when the

¶50

ANJU RANI 2024.11.08 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-43764-2024

	attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3.	Mobile number (If available)
4.	E-Mail id (If available)

¶55

The petitioners shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioners 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.

¶56

Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners 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.

¶57

Given the background of allegations against the petitioners, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the 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 firearm(s). [This restriction 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 sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioners shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioners shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in 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.

¶58

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

¶59

ANJU RANI 2024.11.08 16:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

CRM-M-43764-2024

necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.”

¶64

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

¶65

A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioners 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.

¶66