Amritpal Singh Alias Kanu v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 27 23.02.2024 Sadar Dhuri, Dis.. Sangrur 307, 341, 323, 506, 148, 149, 201 IPC

¶1The pettoner incarcerated in the FIR captoned above had come up before this Court under Secton 483 of Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 7 of the bail petton, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allegatons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "2. That pursuant to the said order, it is submited that the brief facts of case/FIR no. 27 dated 23.02.2024 u/s 307, 341, 323, 506, 148, 149, 201 IPC (offence u/s 307 IPC was added vide DDR No.14 dated 26.02.2024 and then offence u/s 307 was deleted and offence u/s 308 IPC was added vide DDR no.36 dated 25.10.2024 later on) P.S., Sadar Dhuri, District Sangrur are that the present FIR was registered against Jashan son of Amarjeet Singh resident of Gandowal, P.S. Sherpur, Sukhpreet Singh son of Kuldeep Singh resident of Jhaloor, District Barnala and 3 un-known persons on the order/judgment. 1 basis of statement of Shamsher Singh son of Chhaju Singh son of Utam Singh resident of Soora Pa:, Ghanauri Kalan to the effect that, he is an agriculturist. He has two children. His eldest daughter namely Ravneet Kaur is married at village Bhojowali and younger son namely Harmanpreet Singh, aged about 29 years, is also married and assists him in his agricultural work. On 22.02.2024, at about 6:15 P.M., his son Harmanpreet Singh was coming from the house of his (complainant) elder brother namely Balwinder Singh and when his son Harmanpreet Singh reached in front of their house then from Dhuri side one car, bearing registra@on number PB-44-B-6011 of white colour being driven by Jashan, came there and stopped near his son. Meanwhile Jashan, who was armed with an Iron Rod which was welded with half of bicycle chain and Sukhpreet Singh also armed with an Iron Rod along with three uniden@fied persons who were also armed with Iron Rods alighted from the vehicle. Jashan gave an Iron Rod blow towards his son which hit on the leB side of his forehead. His son in order to save himself ran away. Then uniden@fied persons stopped him. Jashan and Sukhpreet Singh gave Iron Rod blows to his son on the back side of his head due to which his son fell down. While he was lying on the ground, all the accused persons inflicted injuries on the person of his son with their Iron Rods on his leB arm and fingers of his leB hand. He (complainant) raised alarm to save his son which atracted his nephew Amandeep Singh to the spot and seeing people gathering there, aBer giving threats of dire consequences to his son, all the accused along with their respec@ve weapons ran away from the spot in their car. He got his son admited to Civil Hospital Dhuri from where, due to his worsened medical condi@on, his son was referred to DMC Ludhiana, where his treatment is going on. On the basis of said statement of Shamsher Singh, present FIR was registered against Jashan and Sukhpreet Singh and 3 un-known persons and inves@ga@on commenced."

¶4The pettoner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the pettoner and his family.

¶5The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. State counsel referring the status report dated 07.01.2025 submits that due to injuries on the person of victm Harmanpreet Singh, he was in COMA and hospitalized for 5/6 months at DMC, order/judgment. 2 Ludhiana and now also he is on bed and requires a care taker. Counsel for the complainant also opposes the bail and submits that more than 80 lakhs have already been spent on the treatment of the victm and so far there is no improvement.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the reply, which read as follows: "8. A. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER AMRITPAL SINGH @ KANU The present FIR was registered against accused Jashan (Jashanpreet Singh @ Jashan verified later on) and Sukhpreet Singh and three un-known persons on the basis of statement of Shamsher Singh. During investgaton, accused/pettoner Amritpal Singh @ Kanu and his 2 other co-accused were nominated as accused in this case. It was duly substantated that on 22.02.2024, Harmanpreet Singh (son of complainant) reached in front of his house. Where all the 5 accused persons including present pettoner Amritpal Singh on car bearing PB-44-B-6011 armed with deadly weapons and they gave severe beatngs to Harmanpreet Singh (son of complainant) with the common intenton to kill him and inflicted 8 injuries to him, out of which, injuries no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 declared by the doctor as Grievous caused with blunt weapon and injuries no. 6 and 8 as simple in nature. It is further submi.ed that injured is not able to speak even now. So, a specific role is a.ributed to the pettoner in the commission of present serious offence. B. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER

i) During interrogaton accused Jashanpreet Singh @ Jashan disclosed that, he, Gurlal Singh @ Sunny, Ranjit Singh @ Dhindsa and Amritpal Singh @ Kanu in connivance with each other gave severe beatng to Harmanpreet Singh with the intenton to kill him. On the basis of his said disclosure, Gurlal Singh @ Sunny, Ranjit Singh @ Dhindsa and Amritpal Singh @ Kanu were nominated as accused in this case.

ii) Accused Gurlal Singh @ Sunny, Ranjit Singh @ Dhindsa and Amritpal Singh @ Kanu (now pettoner) were identfied by Shamsher Singh (complainant) that they are the persons, who gave severe beatngs to his son Harmanpreet Singh with the intenton to kill him. Iii) From the statements of witnesses under secton 180 of the BNSS it clearly revealed that the pettoner played an actve role in the commission of the present offence. C. xxx xxx xxx JYOTI The pe@@oners/accused took ac@ve part in the commission of present order/judgment. 3 offence in connivance with his other co-accused and all of them with common inten@on gave severe bea@ngs to Harmanpreet Singh (son of complainant) with the common inten@on to kill him and inflicted 8 injuries to him, out of these injuries, injury no.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 declared by the doctor as grievous and injuries no.6 and 8 as simple in nature. So, the pe@@oner is not en@tled for the grant of regular bail." REASONING:

¶7There is sufficient primafacie evidence connectng the pettoners with the alleged crime. Given the injuries inflicted on the person of the victm and conditon of the victm, who is stll on bed, no ground is made out for grant of bail to the pettoner.

¶8A perusal of the bail petton and the documents a.ached primafacie points towards the pettoner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact Any further discussions will likely prejudice theof crime would not justfy bail. pettoner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶9Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶10Petition dismissed. All pending applicatons, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

28.02.2025 Jyot-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 03.02.2025 Pronounced on: 28.02.2025 Amritpal Singh @ Kanu ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Sumeet Puri, Advocate, for the pettoner. Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. ****