Gurmukh Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta.on Sec.ons 70 05.05.2023 Makhu, District Ferozepur 406, 120-B IPC

¶1The pe!!oners apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above have come up before this Court under Sec!on 482 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2As per paragraph 18 of the bail pe!!on and as per paragraph 9-E of the reply, the pe!!oner-Jorawar Singh has clean antecedents and pe!!oner-Gurmukh Singh has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta.on

¶139 27.05.2017 306 IPC Mallanwala, Dis>. Ferozepur

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. That brief facts of the case are that complainant moved an applicaton before the SSP, Moga with the allegatons that he alongwith Mela Singh had purchased the land measuring 26 Kanals 16 Marlas bearing khewat no.94 situated in the area of village Khadoor, Tehsil Zira in equal share. In said land complainant and Mela Singh had established a brick kiln under the name and style of M/s Rajinderpal BKO Khdoor. In said brick kiln. Complainant was partner to the extent of 35%, Mela Singh was partner to the extent of 35% share, Sohan Lal was having 15% share and 15% share. A5er death of Mela Singh, his sons Jorawar Singh,JYOTI order/judgment. 1 Gursewak Singh and Gurmukh Singh had taken the forcible possession of said brick kiln and they are not allowing the complainant to entered into the brick kiln nor they are providing the accounts detail to the complainant. In connivance of each other, accused had also fabricated one partnership deed in the year of 2016-17 and in the Income tax return they had shown the share of complainant 50% and share of Jorawar Singh 50% and they have also shown Sohan Lal and Nishan Chand as retred. In the year of 2018-19 accused had shown the partners of firm as, complainant 35% share, Jorawar Singh 35% share, Gurmukh Singh and Gursewak Singh 15% each. Whereas complainant had not signed any such document. Complainant further mentoned that accused had also taken the forcible possession of 3 tractors i.e. PB05W-7961, PB47D-8336, PB05P-8463 and one JCB No. PB05Q9571. Accused are threatening the complainant.

4.That on the basis of said applicaton, enquiry was conducted by the then DSP, Zira and during enquiry, it is found that accused in connivance with each other with malafide intenton to play fraud with the complainant had commiAed the embezzlement of joint material lying in the brick kiln as well as vehicles of the complainant. A5er completon of enquiry, enquiry officer recommended to register the case u/s 406/120-B IPC and also observed that allegatons regarding filing of income tax returns on fake documents should be verified during the investgaton.

¶5That a5er completon of enquiry, the enquiry officer had submiAed his report before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur. However, on said enquiry report, the SSP, Ferozepur called the comments from the SP (Inv), Ferozepur.

¶6That a5er considering the enquiry report and facts on the file, the SP

(Inv), Ferozepur, agreed with the enquiry report of the then DSP, Zira, and submiAed his report before the SSP, Ferozepur. On said report as well as comments, the SSP, Ferozepur called the comments from SP (Operaton), Ferozepur. A5er considering the enquiry report and facts on the file, the SP (Operaton), Ferozepur, agreed with the enquiry report and therea5er the instant case has been registered."

¶4Counsel for the pe!!oners submits that there is one JCB which was although registered in the name of the complainant but they had paid the installments and they would have no objec!on if police take steps to recover the same. The pe!!oners' counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that pre-trial order/judgment. 2 incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oners and their family.

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

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read as follows: "9.B. The Evidence against pettoner: There is sufficient oral and documentary evidence against the pettoners. The malafide intenton of pettoners is proved from the fact that they have furnished the income tax returns by changing the share of the complainant. C. Role of pettoners: During investgaton/enquiry number of witnesses joined and it is found that pettoners have embezzled the material and machinery lying on said brick kiln." REASONING:

¶7Dispute is between the partners and now qua the property of partnership firm. Given the undertaking by counsel for the pe!!oners that they would have no objec!on to return the JCB, as such, they are en!tled to bail.

¶8Pre-trial incarcera!on should not be a replica of post-convic!on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu!on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an!cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus!fy custodial interroga!on or pre-trial incarcera!on.

¶9Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega!ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus!fiability for custodial interroga!on or the pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage. Without commen!ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men!oned above, the pe!!oners make a case for bail.

¶10Given above, provided the pe!!oners are not required in any other case, the pe!!oners shall be released on an!cipatory bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the Arres!ng Officer, and if the ma>er is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the order/judgment. 3

¶11While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oners shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the a>es!ng 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 pe!!oners' complying with the following terms.

¶13The pettoners are directed to join the investgaton within seven days of uploading this order on the official webpage of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and as and when called by the Investgator. The pe!!oners shall be in deemed custody for Sec!on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec!on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe!!oners shall join the inves!ga!on as and when called by the Inves!ga!ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves!ga!on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu!on will be open to seeking cancella!on of the bail. During the inves!ga!on, the pe!!oners shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶14The pe!!oners shall abide by all statutory bond condi!ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe!!oners 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.

¶15In case the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta!on arraigns another sec!on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec!on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec!ons men!oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec!on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec!ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec!ons men!oned above; then, in that case, the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe!!oners no!ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶16This bail is condi#onal, and the founda#onal condi#on is that if the pe##oners indulge in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica#on for cancella#on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶17Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on theJYOTI order/judgment. 4 case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶18A cer!fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe!!oners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a>est it to be a true copy. If the a>es!ng officer wants to verify its authen!city, such an officer can also verify its authen!city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a>es!ng bonds.

¶19Pe..on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

15.05.2025 Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 Gurmukh Singh and another ...Pe!!oners Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the pe!!oners. Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G, Punjab. ****