Sukhdev Singh and Another Vs Manoj… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

Sukhdev Singh and Another Vs Manoj… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders dated 30.09.2019 and 30.10.2019 granting anticipatory bail in CRM-M-24506-2019 were violated when the petitioners were arrested again despite the grant of anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

In view of the submissions of learned State counsel — including the addition of the offence under Section 3(1) SC/ST Act to FIR No. 57 on 04.11.2019, the petitioners' arrest on 06.11.2019 and release on bail on 21.11.2019, and the registration of fresh FIR No. 50 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC — no further directions were required to be passed in the contempt petition, and it was disposed of accordingly. The Court did not expressly pronounce on the existence or absence of contempt/violation beyond accepting the State's explanation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

COCP No.420 of 2020 (O&M), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (NIDHI GUPTA J., oral), decided 05.09.2025. Contempt petition by Sukhdev Singh and another alleging violation of the orders dated 30.09.2019 and 30.10.2019 of a co-ordinate Bench in CRM-M-24506-2019 ('Sukhdev Singh and another vs. State of Punjab'), whereby anticipatory bail was granted in FIR No. 57 dated 14.04.2019 with conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. State counsel, on instructions from SHO Avtar Singh, Police Station Tarn Taran, explained that upon complainant Surinder Kaur's statement, an offence under Section 3(1) SC/ST Act was added to FIR No. 57 (registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran) vide DDR No. 36 dated 04.11.2019, whereafter the petitioners were arrested on 06.11.2019 and released on bail on 21.11.2019; it was also pointed out that a fresh FIR No. 50 of 2020 under Section 302 IPC has been registered against the petitioners. Keeping in view these submissions, the Court held that no further directions were required to be passed, disposed of the petition, discharged the Rule, and disposed of pending applications.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101

COCP No.420 of 2020 (O&M) Date of decision : 05.09.2025

Sukhdev Singh and another

…..Petitioners

Versus

Manoj Kumar and others

…..Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:Ms. Komal Mohindra, Advocate for Ms. Satwant Mehta, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Bedi, Additional A.G. Punjab

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

The present contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the orders dated 30.09.2019 and 30.10.2019 (Annexures P-2 and P-3 respectively) passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-24506-2019 titled as “ Sukhdev Singh and another vs. State of Punjab ”. Vide the above mentioned criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners had sought anticipatory bail from this Court in FIR No. 57 dated 14.04.2019; and vide order dated 30.10.2019, anticipatory bail had been granted to the petitioners with a direction to the petitioners that they shall join the investigation as and when required by the police and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were arrested again, despite grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned State counsel on instructions from SHO Avtar Singh, Police REENA 2025.09.05 06:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentStation Tarn Taran points out that an offence under Section 3(1) of SC/ST Act was Chandigarh

COCP No.420 of 2020 (O&M) -2-

added in the FIR No. 57 dated 14.04.2019 registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran on 04.11.2019; thereafter, the petitioners were arrested on 06.11.2019 and were released on bail on 21.11.2019. He submits that there is no violation of order dated 30.10.2019. Learned State counsel substantiates his above said submissions by referring to the averments made in para No. 3 of the short reply dated 06.09.2022 filed by way of affidavit of Ravinder Pal Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Charge & Rank Command Center, Amritsar on behalf of respondent No. 3, wherein it is inter alia stated that “the complainant Surinder Kaur had got recorded her statement before the SHO upon which offence under Section 3(1) R/SCST Act vide DDR No. 36 dated 04.11.2019 was added to the FIR No. 57 dated 14.04.2019 registered under Sections 323, 324, 326, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran”. It is pointed out that fresh FIR No. 50 of 2020 has been registered against the petitioners under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Sadar Tarn Taran. He also submits that there are several FIRs pending against the petitioners and they are habitual offenders.

Heard.

Keeping in view the above noted submissions made by learned State counsel, no further directions are required to be passed in the present petition, and the same is disposed of accordingly.

Rule stands discharged.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.

05.09.2025

(NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE

reena

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

REENA 2025.09.05 06:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh