Amandeep Jethi v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons 36 21.02.2023 Sadar Kharar, 304, 323, 341, 427, 148, 149 IPC and District SAS Nagar Sec!ons 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act (Sec!on 302 IPC added later on)

¶1The pe!!oner incarcerated in the FIR cap!oned above had come up before this Court under Sec!on 439 of CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 21 of the bail pe!!on and as per para 15 of the Status report/custody cer!ficate, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta2on No.

¶1134 14.06.2022 399, 402, 201 IPC, 25 of Arms Focal Point Ludhi-Act ana

¶2249 09.10.2022 473 IPC, 21, 21-B, 21-C, 25, 29 of STF, SAS Nagar NDPS Act

¶3254 11.10.2022 473 IPC, 21, 21C, 25, 29 of NDPS STF, SAS Nagar Act

¶4263 15.10.2022 18, 20, 21, 29 of NDPS Act STF, SAS Nagar

¶562 02.04.2023 21, 29 of NDPS Act Sadar Ludhiana

¶6377 07.12.2023 21, 21C, 29 of NDPS Act STF, SAS Nagar

¶73 25.01.2024 25 of Arms Act, 120-B IPC SSOC, SAS Nagar

¶845 14.03.2024 18, 20, 21, 22, 27-A, 29 of NDPS STF SAS Nagar Act, 52-A Prison Act

¶983 31.03.2024 174 IPC STF, SAS Nagar order/judgment. 1

¶10238 03.12.2011 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 IPC Jodhewal

¶11335 22.07.2023 22 of NDPS Act Division No.7 (Vardhman)

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. That with regard to the subject ma+er of the present pe""on, it is submi+ed that case/FIR No.36 dated 21.02.2023 u/s 304, 341, 427, 148, 149, 323 IPC (Sec"on 25-54-59 of Arms Act added vide case diary no.12 dated 02.04.2023 and Sec"on 302 IPC added vide case diary no. 31 dated 31-05-2023) was registered at PS Kharar, District SAS Nagar against Sagar Nahar, Parminder Singh, Kulvir Sarao, Prince @ Tarandeep Singh and 5 unknown persons on the statement of complainant Charanjit Singh (father of deceased Babanpreet Singh) that his nephew Akashdeep Singh had called him in the intervening night of 14-15.02.2023 at about 12.00 AM to

12.30 AM and informed him that he and Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) were returning in their Baleno car bearing registra"on no. PB-23-Z-5367 from Chandigarh and when they were about to get over the Desu Majra flyover, then some boys had hit their aforesaid car with their car make Baleno colour white and had a+acked him and Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) with deadly weapons a<er encircling them. Therea<er, when the complainant and his brother Jasvir Singh reached Desu Majra cut near flyover, his nephew Akashdeep Singh met them and informed that Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) was taken to Max Hospital, Phase-6, Mohali upon which, the complainant and his brother reached Max Hospital, Phase-6, Mohali, where the doctor informed about the death of Babanpreet Singh. The complainant as well as their en"re family was under a great shock due to the death of Babanpreet Singh and on the statement of Akashdeep Singh the proceedings under Sec"on 174 of Cr.P.C. were conducted by the police vide DDR No.17 dated 15.02.2023. The dead body of the deceased Babanpreet Singh was handed over to them a<er conduc"ng the post-mortem. Apart from the above, the spot was inspected, site plan was prepared, and the iden"fica"on statements were recorded u/s 175 Cr.P.C. The form 25-35(1)(A) was prepared. It had been further alleged that Akashdeep Singh had told the complainant that he and the Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) went to PARA Club, near Alto Mall, Chandigarh on dated

14.02.2023 in the night wherein, the accused Sagar Nahar, Parminder order/judgment. 2 Singh, Kulvir Sarao, Prince and other 4/5 unknown persons had quarrelled and scuffled with them at PARA Club at that "me and therea<er, all of them had followed their Baleno car and when they were about to get over the flyover from Desu Majra slip-road, then these accused had hit the side of their car with the car of Akashdeep and Babanpreet, as a result of which, their car got damaged badly and therea<er, they had forcibly encircled their car. Therea<er, the aforesaid accused alighted from their car and had pulled Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) from his car by opening the front side window and a<er that they started bea"ng him and Akashdeep Singh and when these accused were about to kill Babanpreet Singh (since deceased), then Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) had started running on the other side of the road by saving himself from them and then these accused followed Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) and when these accused pushed Babanpreet Singh (since deceased), then as a result of this push, Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) had collided with Himachal Roadways Government bus bearing registra"on no.HP-53-B-7401 on the other side of the divider and the head of Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) hit the aforesaid bus. Therea<er, when the bus driver Arun Singh had alighted from the bus a<er stopping the same, then these boys ran away from the spot in their aforesaid car. Babanpreet Singh (since deceased) has died on account of the aforesaid bea"ngs given to him by the aforesaid accused, who had forced him to collide with the aforesaid bus, while he was a+emp"ng to save him from them. The complainant further stated that the reason behind the rivalry is the dispute/fight that took place between Babanpreet Singh and the aforesaid accused person about 1½-2 years ago. Accordingly, appropriate legal ac"on was sought against the aforesaid persons. Consequently, case/FIR No. 36 (supra) was registered, and the inves"ga"on commenced."

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel argued for bail and made many arguments, all of which are also men!oned in the bail pe!!on, from para 6 to 7, which read as follows: "6. That from the bare perusal of the FIR, it is alleged that on dated

14.02.2023 in the night the quarrel was took place, in the night club at Elante Mall, Chandigarh whereas the alleged occurrence shown at Dessu Majra slip road at Kharar. The story of the prosecu"on is unbelievable as one side it is alleged that he try to cross the road by running and the other JYOTI side it is alleged that he was pushed and he hit with the bus. order/judgment. 3

¶7That the pe""oner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Infact, the pe""oner has no link or concern with the allega"ons made in the FIR. Moreover, the pe""oner is involved on the disclosure statement of the cti-accused. Infact police is inimical towards pe""oner as he is a General Secretary Congress Ludhiana since 2020 and before this he and his family were the worker of the congress party. And now the pe""oner wants to contest the elec"on of M.C at Janta Nagar, Ludhiana as he is having a good reputa"on in the locality and the ruling party con"nue pressurize to join the ruling party but as he denied and due to this under the pressure of the ruling party the name of the pe""oner have been roped in the present false case and even also pe""oner and his family implicated in mul"ple cases of NDPS and all are on the disclosure statement and the all cases are foisted upon the pe""oner just to make him habitual offender."

¶5The pe!!oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi!ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera!on would cause an irreversible injus!ce to the pe!!oner and his family.

¶6The complainant's counsel argued that the pe!!oner is a gangster and, if released on bail, will undoubtedly eliminate the witnesses, and the family members of the deceased shall be at grave risk. He further referred to the reply and submiCed that the pe!!oner does not deserve bail.

¶7The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶8It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the status report, which read as follows: "4. That during the course of inves"ga"on, the spot was inspected, site plan was prepared, and the statements of witnesses were recorded under Sec"on 161 Cr.P.C. The D.V.R of the CCTV cameras installed in the Para Club Centra Mall, Industry Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh was obtained from the Manager Kashmir Singh, which was taken into police possession, in accordance with law. The CCTV footage of J.J. Tower, Desu Majra, District Mohali was also obtained from the Manager Kulveer Singh, which was also taken into police possession, in accordance with law. The accused Kulvir Singh Sarao was arrested in the present case/FIR No. 36 (supra) on

05.03.2023, in accordance with law. Based upon the interroga"on of accused Kulvir Singh Sarao, Jashan and Raman were nominated as order/judgment. 4 accused in the present case/FIR No. 36 (supra) vide Case Diary No.5 dated

05.03.2023. Efforts were made to arrest the remaining accused persons by conduc"ng raids at their respec"ve houses and other suspected places, however, they could not be arrested as they were evading their arrest and were on a run. Accordingly, secret sources were deputed to trace out their whereabouts."

¶9Sufficient digital, scien!fic, and ocular evidence connects the pe!!oner with the crime. A perusal of the bail pe!!on and the documents aCached primafacie points towards the pe!!oner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would not jus!fy bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pe!!oner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶10The pe!!oner's custody of around one year and six months cannot be termed prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense, which is life imprisonment.

¶11Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶12Pe22on dismissed. All pending applica!ons, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

19.11.2024 Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 08.11.2024 Pronounced on: 19.11.2024 Amandeep Jethi ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Ms. Swa! Batra, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sohrab Danda, Advocate, for the complainant. ****