Ankit Kumar v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 07 15.01.2024 Sadar Ludhiana, 457, 395, 120-B IPC and 25, 27, 54, 59 District Ludhiana of Arms Act (Sec!ons 22, 61, 85 of NDPS Act added later on)

¶1The pe!!oner incarcerated in the FIR cap!oned above had come up before this Court under Sec!on 483 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 26 of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "4. That the brief factual matrix pertaining to the present case are men-oned hereinbelow: i. That on the basis of the statement provided by an individual, namely Jagdish Kumar (hereina"er referred to as "the complainant"), the present case, i.e., FIR No.7 dated 15/01/2024, was registered ini-ally under Sec-ons 457, 395, 120-B of the IPC and Sec-ons 25 and 27 of the Arms Act at PS Sadar, Ludhiana, wherein unknown individuals were arrayed as accused. ii. That it was alleged by the complainant in the aforemen-oned FIR that order/judgment. 1 he owns a shop named Sodhi Jewelers located on Gill Road, Ludhiana. On 14/01/2024, at around 06:30 PM, while the complainant was seated in his shop, five unknown individuals entered the premises. One of the individuals had his face covered with a mask, while the others had uncovered faces. Three of the said individuals were armed with pistols. Ini-ally, they asked the complainant for a gold ring, but the situa-on quickly escalated when one of the individuals grabbed him. Another individual took a pistol from his pocket, placed it against the complainant's stomach, and demanded that he hand over whatever valuables he had. iii. That as per the allega-ons, the complainant raised an alarm and a@empted to resist, leading to a scuffle with the assailants. During this alterca-on, the assailants reportedly took approximately 3-4 kilograms of silver items and 25-30 grams of gold jewelry from the shop. As they a@empted to flee, the complainant's brother, who operates a flour mill next to the shop, came to his aid. The assailants then fled the scene in a vehicle, during which they fired a gunshot. The complainant described the vehicle of the assailants as being white in color with "AURA" wri@en on it. iv. That upon the registra-on of the aforemen-oned FIR, the footage from the CCTV camera installed inside the shop of the complainant was reviewed. The footage revealed that during the incident, five individuals entered the shop. One of them was carrying a black carry bag, wearing a cap and a jacket. The second individual was wearing a maroon-colored cap, a sleeveless white jacket, and was armed with a pistol. The third individual was wearing a hoodie jacket with his face covered by a mask. Addi-onally, two more individuals, both wearing jackets and armed with pistols, were seen entering the shop and standing at the gate. The individual with the black bag was observed taking silver jewelry from the boxes in the shop and placing them into the bag. Meanwhile, the individual wearing the maroon cap and sleeveless white jacket was seen threatening the complainant with a pistol. Another individual was seen taking gold ornaments from the vault of the shop. Following these ac-ons, the assailants fled from the spot. v. That during the course of inves-ga-on of present case, the footage from the CCTV cameras installed in the vicinity was reviewed. From this footage, the vehicle of the assailants was iden-fied as having the number T0723PB9868D. The inves-ga-ng officer then visited Grover Hyundai (a JYOTI registered seller of Hyundai vehicles) and discovered that the car was order/judgment. 2 registered in the name of one Chander Mohan Singh i.e. the father of the pe--oner. The inves-ga-ng officer proceeded to the residence of Chander Mohan Singh and ques-oned him. Chander Mohan Singh disclosed that he had purchased the said vehicle for his son, Aniket, to use as a taxi. He further revealed that his son had not returned home since 31/12/2023. Addi-onally, on 14/01/2024, Chander Mohan Singh received a phone call from Aniket Singh, who confessed that he had made a big mistake by robbing a jewelry shop on Gill Road with his friends, including Rahul. vi. Thereupon on 19/01/2024, based on a secret informa-on, Rahul, Aniket (the pe--oner) and Navdeep Dubey @ Golu were apprehended on the car bearing number T0723PB9868D. During the search of Aniket i.e. the present pe--oner, an air pistol toy and a polythene bag containing jewelry weighing 435 grams were recovered. From Rahul, a polythene bag carrying 410 grams of silver jewelry was found. From Navdeep Dubey, a black polythene bag containing 350 grams of silver jewelry was recovered. These items were seized by the police via separate memos. The car bearing number T0723PB9868D, with its engine number removed, was also taken into police possession. vii. That during ques-oning of the aforemen-oned accused, it was revealed that individuals namely Ankit Kumar, Karan, Sachin, and Sanjay Kumar were also present during the incident, and thus, they were arrayed as accused. The statement given by Navdeep Dubey under Sec-on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act led to the recovery of a motorcycle that was also used in the offense, bearing number PB-91Q-1426. viii. That on 19/01/2024, Ankit Kumar was arrested, and during his search, a .315 bore pistol, three live cartridges, and a polythene bag containing 455 grams of silver jewelry were recovered. Karan @ Babloo was also arrested, and a .315 pistol, two live cartridges, and a polythene bag containing 355 grams of silver jewelry were found in his possession. ix. That on 24/01/2024, accused Krishan Kumar @ Kala and Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju were arrested. During the personal search of Krishan Kumar @ Kala, silver jewelry weighing 115 grams was recovered, while Sanjay was found with a country-made pistol, one live cartridge, and silver jewelry. x. That on 01/02/2024, accused Manu Mehta @ Sachin was apprehended. During his search gold nose ring weighing 2 tolas and 1 mili, silver jewelry weighing 320 grams, a .32 bore pistol, and six live cartridges. Thereupon on the basis of the disclosure made by the During JYOTI ques-oning, Manu Mehta @ Sachin disclosed the loca-on of 30 strips order/judgment. 3 containing 60 tablets each (totaling 1800 tablets) and 360 loose tablets of "Alprazolam Tablets IP 0.5 mg ALPRasafe 0.5". Consequently, offenses under Sec-ons 22, 61, and 85 of the NDPS Act were added to the present case. The recovered contraband and accused Manu Mehta were produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMIC), Ludhiana, where inventory proceedings were conducted, and the contraband was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examina-on."

¶4The 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.

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

¶6There is sufficient primafacie evidence connec!ng the pe!!oner with the alleged crime.

¶7However, the similarly placed co-accused Kishan Kumar @ Kala and Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju were granted bail by the Sessions Court, vide order dated 20.03.2024 and similarly placed co-accused Rahul was granted bail by this Court, vide order dated

30.08.2024. Further, as per paragraph 13 of the bail pe!!on, the pe!!oner has been in custody since 19.01.2024. As per the custody cer!ficate dated 05.11.2024, the pe!!oner's total custody in this FIR is nine months and 11 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, 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 further pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage.

¶8Without 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!!oner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the !me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶9Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶10While furnishing a personal bond, the pe!!oner shall men!on the following personal iden!fica!on details: order/judgment. 4

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the aHes!ng 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 pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶12The pe!!oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi!ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe!!oner 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.

¶13Given the nature of the allega!ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe!!oner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the vic!m un!l the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condi!on to rule out any aHempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic!m. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves!ga!on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna BhaH v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶14Given the background of allega!ons against the pe!!oner, it becomes paramount to protect the vic!m, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacita!ng the accused would be one of the primary op!ons un!l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiHal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restric!on 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 sanc!on]. Given the nature of the allega!ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe!!oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni!on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiMeen days from release from prison and inform the Inves!gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe!!oner shall be en!tled to renew and take it back in case of acquiHal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restric!ng firearms would ins!ll confidence in the vic!m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea!ng the offense.

¶15The condi!ons men!oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor toJYOTI order/judgment. 5 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 Pe!!on (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 condi!ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor!onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condi!ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi!ons that would result in the depriva!on of rights and liber!es must be eschewed."

¶16Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶17A cer!fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe!!oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aHest it to be a true copy. If the aHes!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 aHes!ng bonds.

¶18Pe11on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

18.11.2024 Jyo1-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 06.11.2024 Pronounced on: 18.11.2024 Ankit Kumar ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Tushar Wadhwa, Advocate for the pe!!oner Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab. ****