Kalu v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

30.06.2024 Arniwala, District Fazilka 307, 379B, 511, 323, 148, 149 IPC and 25/27 of Arms Act

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

¶2In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "That the present FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant Sandeep Kumar son of Harkrishan Chand resident of village Dabwala Kalan wherein he informed that he and his brother have taken land measuring 04 acres near Dabwala Kalan stadium, on lease from owner Om Parkash and turn of water of that land falls on every Saturday at 11:30 PM. He further informed that on 29.06.2024 he accompanied by his servant (siri) Davinder Kumar while riding on motorcycle make Hero Delux No.PB22-F-1842 left for Dabwala Kalan at about 10:50 PM from home and when they both reached on the bridge of minor canal Arniwala, 5-6 persons blocked the road and gave signal to stop the motorcycle but, he did not stop his motorcycle, on which the aforesaid persons with

muffled faces while showing kapa started signaling him to stop and out of fear he stopped the motorcycle. He further informed that then two persons from front and three motorcycle intercepted persons from back side and asked complainant to handover whatever he is possessing. When complainant told them that he has nothing, one of the person by pointing hand on the pocket of complainant asked him to handover iphone-14 and when complainant opposed that person from doing so, one person gave kapa blow on the right leg of his siri Davinder Kumar which hit below his right knee due to which his motorcycle became imbalanced. Then one person standing on back fired from weapon like pistol on which person standing in front of him on right side started screaming. The complainant accelerated the motorcycle from the spot and at some distance from the spot, made telephonic call to his brother Vijay Kumar and father, who collected the people of nearby and informed the matter telephonically to police station. Thereafter, his father Harkrishan Lal arranged conveyance and got admitted his siri Davinder Kumar in Civil Hospital, Fazilka. Thereafter, he and his brother Vijay Kumar heard noise of some person's suffering at the bank of canal. The local police reached at the spot and said accused was got admitted in civil hospital, Fazilka. It was informed by complainant that when kapa blow was given to his siri, their motorcycle became imbalanced and he and his siri were about to fell, the accused person standing behind him fired from weapon like pistol with intention to kill them but the fire hit on their own associate. It was informed by complainant that if their motorcycle did not get imbalanced, the fire would have hit to him or to his siri."

¶4The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

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

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows: "ROLE OF PETITIONER:

¶13That the role of petitioner in commission of offence is that the petitioner/accused was one of the assailants who tried to commit robbery with the complainant. The petitioner alongwith his co-accused injury to Siri Davinder Kumar with kapa and also fired bullet at him which landed on the co-accused Sajan Singh. This fact has further been corroborated by the accused Sajan Singh in his confession statement. Therefore, the

petitioner cannot shirk his criminal liability." REASONING:

¶7Allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature but given the undertaking by the petitioner and considering the custody undergone by the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to course correct.

¶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.

¶9Per the custody certificate dated 07.07.2025 the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 01 year & 03 days.

¶10Given 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.

¶11Without 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.

¶12Given 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.

¶13While 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)

¶14The 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.

¶15Given 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.

¶16Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the 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 firearm(s). [This restriction 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 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 from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in 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.

¶17The conditions mentioned 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 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."

¶18It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so.

¶19This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner repeats the offence and indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the

¶20Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶21A 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.

¶22Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

15.07.2025 anju rani

No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 08.07.2025 Pronounced on: 15.07.2025 Kalu ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. ****