Dev Darshan Alias Charu Behal Vs State of Punjab

Pr a yer in this petition filed under S ection 483 of the BNSS, 2023, is for grant of r egular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.206 dated 27.07.2024 registered unde r Sections 109, 115(2), 118(1) , 333, 303(2), 191(3), 190, of BNS, 2023 (off e nces under Sections 117(2), 118(2) of BNS, 2023 added later on and Section s 317(2) and 238 of BNS, 2023 added vide DDR No.20 dated 1.9.2024 and N o.21 dated 16.09.2024 added l a ter on) at Police Station City Kapurthala, Dis t rict Kapurthala.

¶14

As per the allegations in the FIR, t h e complainant Dev Ashish @ Nannu son of S u khwinder Singh, aged about 17 years suffered a statement that he was pursuin g Computer Course at Anand C o llege, RCF. On 26.07.2024 he and his friend D heeraj Atwal @ Kaka on his m o torcycle bearing no.PB 02 EU 3439 alongwith his cousin Balraj Singh had g o ne to Mohalla Shergarh, near Flour Mill to s e e their relative there. At abou t 6:00 p.m. Charu Behl son of Bharat Bhusha n , Paras @ Ranga son of Vikra m , Paras son of Karan Kumar, Samir @ Shoot e r son of Baldev Singh, Amrik S ingh @ Meeka son of Sukha,

¶15

MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶16

CRR-117-2025

¶17

2

¶18

Rahul @ Dhun n i son of Dhanna Singh all arm e d with Datars got collected in front of the hou s e of their relative and repeated l y called them outside. But due to fear of their w eapons, did not come outside. T hereafter they picked up their aforesaid motor c ycle which was locked and lyi n g parked outside the house of the relative and went away. After sometime they again came at the spot and forcibly entere d into the house of their relati v e and caught hold of Dheeraj Atwal and mad e him to fall on the ground. Ch a ru Behl gave datar blow with intention to kill Dheeraj Atwal and the blow hit on the forehead causing severe injury on the f o rehead of Dheeraj Atwal. Par a s son of Vikaram gave datar blow from reve r se side which hit on the wrist o f right arm of Dheeraj Atwal. Samir @ Shoo t er gave datar blow little bit a b ove the wrist of right arm of Dheeraj Atwal. Amrik Singh @ Meeka gave datar blow from reverse side which hit on t h e knee of left leg of Dheeraj A twal. Rahul @ Dhunni gave datar blow fro m reverse side which hit below t he knee of left leg of Dheeraj Atwal. Paras so n of Karan Kumar gave datar bl o w from reverse side which hit on the back of D heeraj Atwal. He raised alarm but the assailants dragged him also in the stre e t and Charu gave datar blow w ith intention to kill him which hit on the righ t back side of his head due to which he fell on the ground. Amrik Singh @ Meeka gave datar blow from reverse side which hit on the back side of hi s head, Rahul @ Dhunni gave datar blow from reverse side which hit belo w the elbow of left arm. Paras @ Ranga gave datar blow from reverse side wh i ch hit on his left arm, Paras @ Karan Kumar gave datar blow from reverse si d e which hit on his right hand. On hearing his hue and cry, people started g athering at the spot and the ac c used fled away from the spot alongwith their w eapons. Subsequently, the FI R (supra) was registered.

¶19

MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶20

CRR-117-2025

¶21

3

¶22

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that at the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was j u venile and is alleged to have given two inju r ies, out of which, one was declared simple and second is grievous in nat u re. The injury for which, the p r ovisions Section 109 of BNS, 2023 have bee n added has been attributed to t h e petitioner as well as to coaccused Samir @ Shooter. He further contends t hat the petitioner is behind the bars since 12. 0 9.2024 and co-accused name l y, Paras @ Ranga has been granted the c o ncession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 in c a se bearing CRM-M No.9989 of 2025 titled as Paras @ Ranga vs. State of Punjab and one of the co-accus e d, namely, Amreek Singh @ Meeka has bee n granted the concession of reg u lar bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge- I , Kapurthala vide order dated 2 9 .04.2025.

¶23

Le a rned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are total 23 prosec u tion witnesses cited in the list of witnesses, out of which, no PW has been examined till date and the trial is likely to take long time in conclusion.

¶24

Pe r contra , learned State counse l has filed status report dated 21.04.2025 by w ay of affidavit of Deep Karan P PS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Kapurthala, District Kapu r thala on behalf of respondentState, which is taken on record. He opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for th e petitioner on the ground th a t the petitioner has actively participated in t h e alleged incident and has inflicted grievous injuries, as such, he is not entitle d for any relief. Further, the pe t itioner is involved in 04 more cases.

¶25

MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶26

CRR-117-2025

¶27

4

¶28

Ha v ing heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of th e case, it transpires that the pet i tioner is behind the bars since 12.09.2024. In v estigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was pr e sented before the concerned Court. Charges are yet to be framed and trial of the case has not made much p rogress.

¶29

A t wo Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of u n dertrial prisoner in India has ob s erved:

¶30

“6. Jails in India are flooded with u n dertrial prisoners. The statistics pla c ed before us would indicate that m ore than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial p risoners. Of this category of pri s oners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offenc e , being charged with offences pu n ishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illi t erate but also would include wo m en. Thus, there is a culture of off e nce being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it cer t ainly exhibits the mindset, a vest i ge of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwi t hstanding the fact arrest is a dr a conian measure resulting in curt a ilment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, ther e can never be an impression that it i s a police State as both are concep t ually opposite to each other.”

¶31

Fu r ther the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and as suc h , no useful purpose will be ser v ed by further detention of the petitioner-accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the ne a r future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution o f India. 9. Fu r ther keeping in view the la w laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court o f India in “Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another” 2020 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal 831) and “Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State

¶32

MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶33

CRR-117-2025

¶34

5

¶35

of U.P. and another”, 2012 (2) SCC 382 , the i n volvement of the petitioner in other cases would not be a ground to refuse gra n t of concession of regular bail. 10. In v iew of the discussion above, t h e present petition is allowed. Accordingly, w i thout commenting upon the m e rits of the case, the petitioner namely Dev Da r shan @ Charu Behal is ordere d to be released on regular bail during pendenc y of the trial, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of I l laqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Du t y Magistrate. 11. No t hing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of a n opinion by this Court on m e rits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the m atter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice t h e trial.

¶36

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) May 22, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶37

MANISHA 2025.05.22 19:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Dev Darshan Alias Charu Behal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dev Darshan Alias Charu Behal 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

Sunita Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ravi Sharma Vs State of Punjab

Mangal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Shahrukh Khan Vs State of Haryana

Arun Bai Gurdev Pandit Alias Vishnu and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurtej Singh Alias Amarjeet Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others