Rahul @ Dana v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections

15.07.2023 City Kharar, District SAS Nagar 25 of Arms Act (Section 25(7) (8) of Arms Act, 1959 added later on)

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

¶2Per paragraph 11 of the bail application and the reply/custody certificate, the petitioner has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date/Year Offenses Police Station

1.

18.112014 21 of NDPS Act, 1985 Jandiala

2.

07.03.2019 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 Mehta

3.

21.10.2018 397/34/307/14/149/201 IPC Jandiala

4.

04.11.2023 21 of NDPS Act City Faridkot

5.

13.11.2047 307/336/34 IPC Dhilwan

6.

03.01.2021 457/380 IPC Civil Batala

7.

08.03.2018 25 of Arms Act Mehta

8.

20.09.2020 427 IPC and Section 52 Prison Act Islamabad, Amritsar

9.

30.09.2018 307/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959

10.

19.10.2018 307/14/149/201-B of IPC Jandiala

11.

02.056.2021 307/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act, 959 Jandiala

12.

21.11.2019 42/52-A Prisons Act Islamabad, Amrtisar

13.

10.10.2022 42/52-A Prisons Act City Faridkot

14.

13.12.2022 42/52-A Prison Act City Faridkot

15.

15.12.2022 42/52-A Prison Act City Faridkot

16.

29.12.2022 352/186 IPC and Sections 42/52-A Prison Act City Faridkot

17.

29.11.2023 607/365/323/324/148/149/504/506 /120-B IPC City Faridkot

18.

27.04.2023 25(2) of Arms Act, 1959 Jandiala

19.

19.07.2023 42/52-A Prisons Act City Faridkot

¶20(convicted)

15.06.2021 21/22 of NDPS Act City Hoshiarpur

¶21(convicted)

15.06.2021 21/22 of NDPS Act, 1958 City Hoshiarpur

¶22(convicted)

04.10.2015 21 of NDPS Act Jandiala

23.

30.06.2022 42/52-A Prisons Act Islamabad, Amritsar

¶3The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

¶6That the brief facts of the case are that the present FIR has been registered on the basis of secret information to the effect that the gangsters namely Prince Chauhan and Sandeep Singh @ Kala Rana, who are living abroad Canada/America, are used to get gunshots fired upon the persons, who refused to pay ransom in the area of Mohali, Chandigarh and Panchkula. It has been further alleged that one of the co-accused Deepak Singh @ Rana of the present case, used to get the aforesaid gangsters living abroad connected through his mobile phone by using ZANGI App with their local henchmen. It has been further alleged that the aforesaid co-accused Deepak Singh @ Rana also used to operate and arrange for the bank accounts of the aforesaid gangsters living abroad, as these bank accounts were used by these gangsters for obtaining ransom money. It has been further alleged that the secret informer has further informed that the aforesaid co-accused Deepak Singh @ Rana used to roam in the area of Chandigarh, Mohali etc. while armed with weapons. Thereafter, the present FIR was registered.

¶4Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR on the basis of disclosure statement. There is no incriminating evidence has come on record during investigation to connect the petitioner with alleged crime. He further submits that the main accused and similarly situated co-accused has been granted concession

¶5Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that in case, this Court grants bail to the petitioner, he undertakes to live like a decent human being and a civilized member of the society. He further undertakes that if he is again indulged in any offence where the sentence is more than 07 years, he would have no objection, if State files any application for cancellation of his bail. He further contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.

¶6The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. REASONING:

¶7There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. Per paragraph 07 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 18.07.2023. Per the custody certificate dated 01.07.2025, the petitioner's total custody in this FIR is 06 months and 08 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 further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

¶8Without 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. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶9Given 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.

¶10While 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)

¶11This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.

¶12The 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.

¶13This 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.

¶14Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶15A 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.

¶16Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

15.07.2025

renubala

No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: -02.07.2025 Pronounced on:15.07.2025 RAHUL @ DANA ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB …RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab ****