Allowed¶27

Ranjeet Singh Alias Gora v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2025CRM-M/7952/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-7952-2025(O&M); regular bail under Section 483 BNSS; rape Section 376(2)(n) IPC; criminal intimidation Section 506 IPC; obscene video Sections 66(E) and 67 A Information Technology Act, 2000; FIR No.38 dated 19.03.2024, Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur; complainant/victim turned hostile; custody since 21.03.2024 (11 months 18 days); only four of eighteen prosecution witnesses examined; Article 21 right to speedy trial; “bail is a rule, jail is an exception” per Dataram Singh, (2018) 3 SCC 22; bail allowed with conditions; Justice Kirti Singh.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted; petitioner to be released on furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to the enumerated conditions; pending application(s), if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶27

Ranjeet Singh Alias Gora Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No.38 dated 19.03.2024 (Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC; Sections 66(E)/67 A, Information Technology Act, 2000), Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

¶13

Court's answer

The petition is allowed: the petitioner is to be released on regular bail on furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to enumerated conditions (no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; appearance before the trial Court on fixed dates unless personal presence exempted; commission of no offence similar to that accused/suspected; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts or tamper with evidence).

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial concluding in the near future would violate his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, including the right to speedy trial (custody since 21.03.2024; complainant/victim hostile; only four of 18 prosecution witnesses examined).

¶26

Key takeaways

No useful purpose would be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner; continued detention is against the principle “bail is a rule, jail is an exception” as elucidated by the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22.ratio¶26
In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.ratio¶35
Nothing stated in the order is a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case; the observations were made only for the purpose of adjudicating the bail petition and the trial Court would proceed independently of them.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Kirti Singh, J., oral) allowed a regular-bail application under Section 483 BNSS by Ranjeet Singh alias Gora, accused in FIR No.38 dated 19.03.2024, Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC and Section 66(E) (Section 67 A added later) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. With the petitioner in custody since 21.03.2024 (actual custody 11 months and 18 days), the complainant/victim having turned hostile, and only four of eighteen prosecution witnesses examined despite charges framed on 24.07.2024, the Court held that further detention would violate Article 21 of the Constitution, including the right to speedy trial, and was contrary to the principle “bail is a rule, jail is an exception” elucidated in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22. Bail was granted subject to five conditions (no tampering, no witness intimidation, appearance on dates, no similar offences, no inducement/threat/promise), breach entitling the prosecution to seek cancellation; the Court expressly confined its observations to the bail adjudication without commenting on merits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

226

¶3

CRM-M-7952-2025(O&M) Decided on : 12.03.2025

¶4

RANJEET SINGH ALIAS GORA

¶5

. . . Petitioner(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF PUNJAB . . . Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

¶9

PRESENT: Mr. Satvir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG Punjab.

¶11

¶12

KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.38 dated 19.03.2024 under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC and Section 66(E) (Section 67 A added later on) of Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

¶14

The translated version of the FIR is reproduced below:-

¶15

“Copy of Statement, Statement of Jaspreet Kaur wife of Jaspal Singh resident of village Nagra, Police station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur presently daughter of Maghar Singh resident of village Kotra, Tehsil Lehra, district Sangrur aged about 39 years, Mobile number 63063-24875, stated that I am a resident of the above mentioned address and do domestic work, I was married in the year 2006 to Jaspal Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of village Nagra, Police station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, We have two children. Among them, the elder daughter Navdeep Kaur is about 16 years old and is studying in class XI and the younger son Lovedeep Singh is about 14 years old and is studying in class VIII. My husband Jaspal Singh are total three brothers. Me and my husband along with our two children live separately from my brother-in-law (Deor), brother-in-law (Jeth) and in-laws. My husband Jaspal Singh's maternal uncle's son Kanjeet Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of village Mehma Sarja district Bathinda who is a private engineer and do private Job in Sangrur. He used to come and stay at our house for the last one year as our village is close to Sangrur. But now for about 4 months he started staying at our house. Two- Three

¶16

KAVITA NAIN 2025.03.12 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment

¶17

CRM-M-7952-2025(O&M)

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

months ago when my husband was at work and the children were at school, Ranjeet Singh abovesaid and I were alone at home, then Ranjeet Singh threatened me and had sexual intercourse with me against my will and raped me, which I stopped him from doing, then he threatened me that if you tell anyone, I will kill you. After this, he continued to have sexual intercourse with me by threatening me in the same way. One day, he took me to a hotel where he raped me without my consent and also made a obscene video of me. After this, he threatened me to make my video viral and continued to have sexual intercourse with me many times against my will. So, fearing that my honor would be damaged, I could not tell anyone about this incident happening to me, but about 4-5 days ago, when I had gone to my parents' house, Ranjit Singh sent the obscene video of me to my husband on his phone. After watching the video, my husband and in-laws clearly forbade me from staying at their house. Today, I have come to Chowki Gharachon Police Station Bhawanigarh to report this matter alongwith my father Maghar Singh son Bala Singh. Please take appropriate legal action against the abovementioned Ranjeet Singh for raping me and making a obscene video of me and sending it to my husband. ”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

¶21

has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that the complainant/victim has turned hostile. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 18 days and there is one other case registered against him, however he is on bail.

¶22

Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 11 months and 18 days and there is one other case registered against him, however he is on bail. She on instructions from ASI Major Singh submits that charges were framed on 24.07.2024 and out of a total of 18 prosecution witnesses, only four have been examined till date. However, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant/victim has turned hostile.

¶23

KAVITA NAIN 2025.03.12 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment

¶24

CRM-M-7952-2025(O&M)

¶25

- 3 -

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since 21.03.2024. The complainant/victim has turned hostile. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case has not made much progress as out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only four have been examined so far. Therefore, the trial in the present case will not conclude anytime soon. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violate of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle “Bail is a rule, jail is an exception” as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in “Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another”, (2018) 3 SCC 22.

¶27

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-

¶28

(I) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶29

(II) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶30

(III) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶31

(IV) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the

¶32

KAVITA NAIN offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of 2025.03.12 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document which he is suspected. order/judgment

¶33

- 4 - CRM-M-7952-2025(O&M)

¶34

(V) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶35

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶36

However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.

¶37

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of

¶38

accordingly.

¶39

(KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE

¶40

12.03.2025 Kavita

¶41

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

¶42

KAVITA NAIN 2025.03.12 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document order/judgment

Ranjeet Singh Alias Gora v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet Singh Alias Gora 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

Chirag Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Amritpal Kaur Vs Lakhvir Singh and Ors.

Ravi Alias Ravi Yadav Vs State of Haryana

Sabir Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep Vs State of Haryana

Madan Lal and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another