Satnam Singh @ Satta Vs State of Punjab

The pe��oner incarcerated in the FIR cap�oned above came before this Court under Sec�on 483 of Bhara�ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶15

In paragraph 20 of the bail pe��on, the accused declares that he is involved in one more case in which he is on bail and there is no other case except the present FIR.

¶16

However, as per para 15 of the status report, the detail of said case is as under:

¶17

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Year	Offenses	Police Sta1on
1.	152	2024	420,467,468,471 IPC	Gajrola,Philiphit,U�ar Pradesh

¶18

The facts of the case are being taken from supplementary challan filed under Sec�on 173 CrPC annexed with the pe��on as annexure P-5, which reads as follows:

¶19

“That the brief facts of the case are that on 04.03.2024, I INSP/SHO alongwith SI Barma Singh 01/SAS Nagar and ASI Amrik Singh No.117/SAS Nagar, ASI Jasvir Singh 89/SAS Nagar, Hauldar Baljit Singh 1459/SAS Nagar, Sepoy Jasdeep Singh 1850/SAS Nagar were riding on a Government Vehicle Scorpio, whose driver is Sepoy Beant Singh No.2227/SAS Nagar alongwith inves2ga2on kit were present at near patrol pump Phase-11 Mohali in connec2on with patrolling and searching

¶20

JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶21

1

¶22

CRM-M-52825-2024

¶23

the suspected person. Then at around 12:30 PM, Head Constable gave me (I Inspector) informa2on through phone that one person has been murdered by some unknown persons with gunshots at C.P. Mall, Sector 67, Mohali on Airport Road. On which I Inspector alongwith police party reached the spot. Where one person was lying dead due to gunshot injures on slip road in front of C.P. Mall, Sector 67, Mohali, who was checked by I Inspector alongwith police party and from his pocket, one aadhar card no.6268xxxxxxxx was found, on which his name was wri=en as Rajesh Dogra son of Ved Parkash, resident of House No.797, New Plot, Prem Nagar, Tahli Mod City Jammu. Many bullets were fired on his body. On checking of CCTV cameras installed at CP Mall, it was found that the assailants were having car bearing no. JK-02-CC-0019 make Creta colour white, car no. CH-01-CI-5801 make Innova Crysta colour gray, car no. HP23-F-7559 make Breza colour white, out of them, 5-6 assailants alighted and fired gunshots towards Rajesh Dogra and murdered him. In this regard, offence under Sec2ons 302, 120-B of IPC and Sec2on 25-54-59 of Arms Act have been commi=ed. xxx xxx”

¶24

Counsel for the pe��oner made the following submissions:

¶25

(i) that the pe��oner has no connec�on with the present case.

¶26

(ii) he has been roped on the basis of disclosure statement.

¶27

(iii) the only allega�on against the pe��oner is that he is known to Satbir Singh, who is his neighbour in Pilibhit, U�ar Pradesh and he only arrange mee�ng between the accused and seller of arms/ammuni�on.

¶28

Counsel for the pe��oner further submits that the pe��oner has no role in the murder of Rajesh Dogra. The only allega�ons against the pe��oner are that he had arranged the mee�ng between the seller of arms and ammuni�on for the murder which came in the disclosure statement and has no eviden�ary value. The pe��oner is a heart pa�ent and has underwent heart surgery, as such, he is en�tled to bail even on medical ground. He was not even part of any planning and had no mo�ve.

¶29

Counsel for the pe��oner refers to para 5 of the bail pe��on, which reads as follows:

¶30

“That the only allega2on on the present pe22oner is that pe22oner contacted with the person who supplied the arms and ammuni2on in the murder. In this regard, the disclosure statement of the pe22oner is being filed herewith as Annexure P-2.”

¶31

JYOTI

¶32

2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶33

2

¶34

CRM-M-52825-2024

¶35

The pe��oner's counsel further 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 his family.

¶36

State counsel has referred to the status report and opposes the bail. He has argued that there is sufficient prima facie evidence indica�ng the pe��oner and the offence is serious in nature and was a pre-planned murder, as such, he is not en�tled to bail.

¶37

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

¶38

“ Role of the pe��oner

¶39

11. That the role a=ributed to the pe22oner in the present case/FIR No. 19 (supra) is that he procured arms, ammuni2on and arms licenses for his co-accused, who commi=ed the murder of Rajesh Dogra. It is submi=ed that all the accused including the pe22oner acted as a team in commiEng the murder of deceased vic2m namely Rajesh Dogra.

¶40

Evidence against the pe��oner

¶41

12. That the evidence against the pe22oner is that he was nominated as accused in the present case/FIR No. 19/2024 (supra) on the disclosure statement of accused Satvir Singh @ Babbu who disclosed that Satnam Singh @ Sa=a (pe22oner) prepared forged arms licenses for Manjit Singh, his brother Parminder Singh, his cousin Sandeep Singh and his friend Sandeep Singh @ Soni, for which Manjit Singh paid Rs. 5 lakhs to Satnam Singh @ Sa=a (pe22oner). Apart from this, Satnam Singh @ Sa=a (pe22oner) had also provided a 12 Bore rifle, two .32 Bore revolvers, a .45 Bore pistol and other arms and ammuni2on. The arms and ammuni2on supplied by Satnam Singh @ Sa=a (pe22oner) were subsequently used in the murder of the deceased Rajesh Dogra. It is submi=ed that during interroga2on, the accused Satnam Singh @ Sa=a (pe22oner) also confessed to assis2ng the co-accused in procuring ammuni2on and forged arms licenses.”

¶42

The pe��oner’s case is on much lower foo�ng is comparison to the other accused who had much bigger role. The allega�on against the pe��oner is that he worked as a Mediator between supplied of arms and the ammuni�on to the main accused. Although pe��oner’s conduct is deplorable, unethical and illegal but considering the facts of this case, it is not a case to deny him bail.

¶43

JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶44

3

¶45

CRM-M-52825-2024

¶46

There is sufficient primafacie evidence connec�ng the pe��oner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarcera�on should not be a replica of post-convic�on sentencing.

¶47

As per paragraph 09 of the status report, the pe��oner has been in custody since 04.06.2024. As per the same, the pe��oner’s total custody in this FIR is around seven months.

¶48

Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, 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 further pre-trial incarcera�on at this stage.

¶49

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.

¶50

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 concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep�ng the surety, the concerned Court must be sa�sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

This order is subject to the pe��oner’s complying with the following terms.

¶54

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.

¶55

Given the nature of the allega�ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this JYOTI case, the pe��oner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the vic�m 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. 4

¶56

CRM-M-52825-2024

¶57

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 a�empt 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 Bha� v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶58

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 acqui�al. 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 fiOeen 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 acqui�al 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.

¶59

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 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.”

¶60

It is clarified that if the pe��oner violates any bail condi�on, the State and/or the vic�m may file an applica�on for bail cancella�on before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more condi�ons. Furthermore, if the pe��oner moves for dele�on or dilu�on of any bail condi�ons, the trial court is empowered to do so.

¶61

JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶62

5

¶63

CRM-M-52825-2024

¶64

23. This bail is condi�onal, and the founda�onal condi�on is that if the pe��oner indulges in any non-bailable ofense, the State shall ff le an applica�on for cancella�oni of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail .

¶65

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.

¶66

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 a�est it to be a true copy. If the a�es�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 a�es�ng bonds.

¶67

Pe11on allowed in terms men�oned above. All pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

¶68

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 30.01.2025 Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶69

JYOTI 2025.01.30 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶70

6

Satnam Singh @ Satta v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh @ Satta v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harpinder Singh Alias Harpinder Singh Kahlon Vs State of Punjab

Mehak Bhai Jethi Vs State of Haryana

Sawan Vs State of Haryana

Maninder Singh @ Sethi Vs State of Punjab

Harjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab