Gurwinder Singh @ Prinkle v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 165 10.08.2024 Sadar Ludhiana, District 356(2), 351(3), 79 of BNS and Police Commissionerate Secton 67 of IT Act (Later on Ludhiana, Punjab added Secton 299 of BNS and Secton 67-A of IT Act)

¶1The pettoner apprehending arrest in the FIR captoned above has come up before this Court under Secton 482 of Bharatya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking antcipatory bail.

¶2As per paragraph 23 of the bail petton and as per paragraph 7 of the reply dated

30.09.2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta1on

¶1253 20.12.2013 307, 326, 452, 295, Division No.7, Ludhiana 506, 120-B and 34 IPC

¶2235 04.08.2022 509 IPC and Sectons Division No.7, Ludhiana 67 & 67-A of IT Act

¶3227 16.11.2022 509 IPC and Sectons Division No.7, Ludhiana 67 & 67-A of IT Act

¶3The facts and allegatons are being taken from the reply dated 30.09.2024 filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3. That the brief factual matrix pertaining to the present case are mentoned hereinbelow:JYOTI order/judgment. 1 i. That it is respecBully submiCed that a wriCen complaint was lodged by an individual namely Gurpreet Singh (hereinaDer referred to as "the complainant"), with the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the complainant, a baptzed Gursikh, has been a preacher and orator of the Sikh religion for the past 25 years and is connected with the public through his YouTube channel ttled "Harpreet Singh Makhu." The complainant alleged that a few days prior, Gurwinder Singh @ Prinkle (the pettoner) had made inappropriate statements on Facebook, promptng the complainant to interview the individual in queston and publish the interview on Facebook. ii. That subsequently, the pettoner allegedly called the complainant via WhatsApp, during which he verbally abused him. The complainant further alleged that the pettoner edited the said conversaton and posted it on social media with the intent to tarnish the complainant's image. The pettoner also referred to the complainant as "Makhi and published a video on his Facebook page ttled "Makhu Kach di Banyi Rel, Saare Suno, where he repeatedly used derogatory terms like "Makhu Khach" which, according to the complainant, had hurt the religious sentments of his large following. iii. ThereaDer, the pettoner allegedly published a live video on his Facebook page where he made several derogatory remarks, statng, "People will stop seeing Sunny Leone," "People will see less of Sonu Seetuwala," but "people will see more of your elder women, who will be seen more on social media." The pettoner also allegedly made further inflammatory statements, including "You speak lies while keeping a beard," "Makhu is an internatonal fraud," among other disparaging remarks. The complaint further mentoned that the pettoner used extremely derogatory language on social media, specifically through several live broadcasts made on his facebook page "Prinkle Ludhiana". iv. That additonally, the complainant alleged that the pettoner had created fake Facebook profiles, wherein offensive and derogatory content targetng women was posted. As a result of the aforesaid allegatons, the present case i.e. FIR No. 165 dated 10.08.2024 has been registered under Sectons 356(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Secton 67 of the Informaton Technology Act. v. That it is pertnent to menton that, pursuant to the registraton of FIR a notce was duly issued to the pettoner, directng him to join the JYOTI investgaton. The notce was served upon the pettoner on 20.08.2024. order/judgment. 2 However, despite receiving the notce, the pettoner has failed to cooperate and has not joined the investgaton to date."

¶4The pettoner's counsel argued that the pettoner is a reputable and law-abiding citzen, finds himself ensnared in a web of false allegatons orchestrated through an FIR lodged by Harpreet Singh, a self-proclaimed journalist and social media influencer. This FIR, rather than serving the ends of justce, appears to be wielded as a tool of coercion, strategically employed to subdue the pettoner into submission to certain vested interests exploitng their influence within the state apparatus. He submits that the complainant, built upon an intricate yet dubious narratve, accuses the pettoner of engaging in defamatory social media actvites, including the use of derogatory language, issuing threats, and misrepresentng conversatons through manipulated digital content. These allegatons are not only unfounded but also appear to be part of a larger campaign of harassment, aimed at maligning the pettoner's reputaton. The complainant, Harpreet Singh, operates a YouTube and Facebook channel under the name 'Harpreet Singh Makhu,' disseminatng sensatonalized and unauthorized content for personal gain. His recent act of circulatng baseless and slanderous claims involving Inderpreet Singh @ Honey Sethi, further exacerbated by vile comments targetng the pettoner's family, stands as a testament to his reckless disregard for truth and ethical journalism. He further submits that upon seeking redress and confrontng the complainant regarding these fabricated allegatons, the pettoner was met with insolence and threats rather than remorse or correctve acton. Furthermore, the complainant claims that the pettoner used offensive language against Avi Sidhu, a known propagator of false narratves, whose actons have contributed significantly to the unwarranted defamaton of the pettoner's family. Screenshots and other digital evidence substantate the malicious intent behind these orchestrated aCempts to vilify the pettoner. Compounding this ordeal, another self-proclaimed journalist, Harmanjeet Singh Bajwa @ Harman Bajwa, joined the ranks of the pettoner's detractors, propagatng abusive content and issuing threats against him. The complainant further amplified these threats by sharing Bajwa's incendiary posts on his Facebook page, escalatng the situaton to alarming levels. He further submits that the pettoner, a respected entrepreneur engaged in the shoe business and widely recognized for his social contributons and politcal affiliatons, has faced systematc retaliaton due to his prominence. The culminaton of this vendeCa reached a horrifying crescendo on November 8, 2024, when masked assailants brazenly stormed the pettoner's shop in broad daylight and unleashed a hail of bullets upon him. In an extraordinary act of self-defense, the pettoner, exercising his lawful right, discharged his licensed firearm, successfully fending off the aCackers and injuring one of them. Miraculously, despite order/judgment. 3 suffering six bullet wounds, the pettoner survived this heinous aCempt on his life, a testament to sheer providence. The sheer audacity and brutality of the aCack sent shockwaves through the community and captured widespread media aCenton, leading to the registraton of FIR No. 0111 under multple sectons of the IPC and the Arms Act. The aDermath of this harrowing incident necessitated extensive medical interventon, with photographic evidence vividly documentng the severity of the injuries sustained by the pettoner. He further submits that despite the gravity of the threats against him, the pettoner encountered stark apathy from the law enforcement authorites. His mobile phone, seized as case property, did not deter him from persistently reaching out to the police officials through WhatsApp messages and calls, all of which were met with silence. Undeterred, the pettoner possesses irrefutable digital evidence of these ignored pleas, further underscoring the systemic bias and negligence that have marked his ordeal. The pettoner now seeks justce, not merely for himself but to expose and dismantle the entrenched misuse of power that has turned legal mechanisms into instruments of personal vendeCa and suppression. His unwavering resolve remains steadfast in the face of adversity, standing as a beacon against the malicious forces determined to subjugate him.

¶5The 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.

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

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the short reply dated

15.02.2025, which read as follows: "5. That in compliance of Order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court the pe""oner joined the inves"ga"on on dated 21.11.2024. But the present pe""oner is not coopera"ng with inves"ga"ng agency and despite giving numerous opportuni"es has failed to submit/recover his mobile phone used in the present crime.

¶8The complainant's counsel also opposes bail. He submits that the pettoner has intentonally used obscene/abusive language and transmiCed obscene material in electronic form against female members of the family of the complainant.

¶9Counsel for the pettoner submits that the pettoner has already handed over his mobile to the police of Police Staton Division No.3, Ludhiana in another case. order/judgment. 4 REASONING:

¶10Pre-trial incarceraton should not be a replica of post-convicton sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecuton or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of antcipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justfy custodial interrogaton or pre-trial incarceraton.

¶11Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegatons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justfiability for custodial interrogaton or pre-trial incarceraton at this stage. Without commentng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentoned above, the pettoner makes a case for bail.

¶12Given above, provided the pettoner is not required in any other case, the pettoner shall be released on antcipatory bail in the FIR captoned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satsfacton of the Arrestng Officer, and if the maCer is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before acceptng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satsfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶13While furnishing a personal bond, the pettoner shall menton the following personal identficaton details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the aCestng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶14This order is subject to the pettoner's complying with the following terms.

¶15The pe""oner is directed to join the inves"ga"on 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 Inves"gator. The pettoner shall be in deemed custody for Secton 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Secton 23 of BSA, 2023. The pettoner shall join the investgaton as and when called by the Investgatng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investgaton at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecuton will be open to seeking cancellaton of the bail. During the investgaton, the pettoner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. order/judgment. 5

¶16The pettoner shall abide by all statutory bond conditons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pettoner 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.

¶17In case the Investgator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Staton arraigns another secton of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new secton prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sectons mentoned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added secton(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sectons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sectons mentoned above; then, in that case, the Investgator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pettoner notce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶18This bail is conditonal, and the foundatonal conditon is that if the pettoner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applicaton for cancellaton of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶19The concerned trial court is authorized to delete, modify, or relax any of the above conditons and shall be competent to do so in accordance with the law.

¶20Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶21A certfied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pettoner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aCest it to be a true copy. If the aCestng officer wants to verify its authentcity, such an officer can also verify its authentcity and may download and use the downloaded copy for aCestng bonds.

¶22Pe11on allowed in terms mentoned above. All pending applicatons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

28.02.2025 Jyot-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 17.02.2025 Pronounced on: 28.02.2025 Gurwinder Singh @ Prinkle ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. G.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the pettoner. Mr. Adesh Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. ****