Viney Rattu Alias Vineretu v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

28.04.2024 Civil Lines Bathinda, Distt. Bathinda 308, 341, 323, 427, 148, 149 IPC

¶1The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court second time under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the translated copy of FIR annexed with the bail petition as Annexure P-1, which reads as follows: "Statement of Sukhmander Singh @ Mander Singh son of Joginder Singh, resident of St. No. 20, Lal Singh Basti, Bathinda aged about 29 years, Mob. No. 91159-xxxxx, stated that I am resident of above said address and I am a Tailor. Today on 28.04.2024, was boarded in school van no.PB03AF-3222 along with my companions from Street No.7, Lal Singh Basti, Bathinda, to attend the election rally of Biba Harsimrat Kaur Badal at Green Palace, Bathinda There Biba Harsimrat Kaur Badal had given speech and went away. We were boarded in the same van and coming to our houses. At about 2:30 PM, our van reached at Gate No.3 of Sports Stadium, Bathinda, 8/10 young men were on motorcycles and scooters armed with swords, rods, baseball and iron pipes and surrounded our school van and broke the glasses of van and driver Nirmal Singh opened the window and ran away. Some persons entered into the van, raising lalkaras and given beatings and said that you have quarreled with their friend Pina and in future do not dare to look at Pina. Vikram @ Coffee son of Yudha Singh resident of Chander Basti, Bathinda given blow of his iron rod at my head. Then Yadwinder Singh @ Pinna son of Jaskaran Singh resident of Chander Basti, Bathinda given blow of his Baseball at the elbow of my right arm. Then, Vineratu son of Ram Nath resident of Chander Basti, Bathinda given blow of his sword at my right bicep. Other persons also given me beatings. Then given beatings to Lavdeep Singh @ Dodi resident of Chander Basti, Bathinda, Lakhvir Singh @ Kaka son of Avtar Singh resident of Bir Road, Bathinda, Gurjot Singh @ Jot son of Harbhupinder Singh resident of Mati Dass Nagar, Bathinda, Mani Singh @ Labha son of Jora Singh resident of Chander Basti, Bathinda, Abhi @ Goli son of Tara Chand resident of Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda, Happy son of Shinda Singh resident of Chander Basti, Bathinda and Sameer son of Nikka Singh resident of Udham Singh Nagar, Bathinda gave beatings. When we all raised noise "Marta Marta", all the above said persons ran away on their vehicles with their weapons. Then the other persons boarded in the van got me admitted in civil hospital, Bathinda. Samir had suffered multiple injuries and therefore, he was referred to higher Hospital. The reason behind the grudge is that a boy named Pina had quarreled somewhat in the rally. Pina called his friends, surrounded the van, inflicted injuries and caused damage to the van. Legal action be taken against Yadwinder Singh @ Pina son of Jaskaran Singh, Vikram Singh @ Kaufi son of Yupa Singh, Vineratu son of Ram Nath, Lavdeep Singh @ Dodi son of Nachattar Singh, Mani Singh @ Labha son of Jora Singh, Happy son of Shinda Singh residents of Chander Basti, Bathinda, Lakhvir Singh @ Kaka son of Avtar Singh resident of Bir Road, Bathinda, Gurjot Singh @ Jot son of Harbhupinder Singh resident of Mati Dass Nagar, Bathinda and Abhi @Goli son of Tara Chand resident of Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda. I have recorded my statement, which is read over and is correct."

¶4Counsel for the petitioner submits that they would have no objection in case any stringent conditions this Court might put upon the petitioner including surrender of fire arms, not enter the property of complainant and in case, petitioner repeat the offence, the State may file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: "10. The Role of the Petitioner During the investigation, it has surfaced that the accused-petitioner in connivance with co-accused had beaten up the victims and they had also ransacked the glass of the case property van. It is specifically stated that the injury no.2 of the complainant Sukhmander Singh is attributed to the accused-petitioner as mentioned in the MLR i.e. Annexure R-1.

¶11The Evidence against the petitioner From the statements of injured the complainant Sukhmander Singh @ Mander and Samir, the accused-petitioner had inflicted injury upon the complainant with his kirpan on left bicep. Further, a scooter mark Access 125 bearing No.PB-03U-6849 used during occurrence has also been recovered from the accused-petitioner." REASONING:

¶7Given the undertaking by counsel for the petitioner that in case, petitioner repeats the offence, the State may file an application for cancellation of bail, as such, he is entitled to bail.

¶8There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. As per paragraph 6 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 28.04.2024. As per the custody certificate dated 06.04.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 11 months and 07 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-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 for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

¶9Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.

¶10Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner 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.

¶11While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶12This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶13Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, 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 firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a 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 petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under 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.

¶14Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner 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.

¶15The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. 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 necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."

¶16The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner 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.

¶17This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶18Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶19A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner 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.

¶20Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

28.04.2025 Jyoti-II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 07.04.2025 Pronounced on: 28.04.2025 Viney Rattu @ Vineretu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Harvinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab. ****