Karan Kumar v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta/on Sec/ons

15.01.2024 Sadar Ludhiana, District Ludhiana 457, 395, 120-B IPC, Sec ons 25/27/54/59 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 Sec on 483 of Bhara ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2Per paragraph 17 of the bail applica on, the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Sta/on

¶12023 379, 411 IPC Sector 58, Noida, District Noida

¶22023 307, 411 IPC Sector 58, Noida, District Noida

¶3The facts and allega ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "3.ii. That it was alleged by the complainant in the aforemenoned FIR that 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 a3empted 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 a3empted 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" wri3en on it."

¶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 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: "3. v. That upon the registra-on of the aforemen-oned FIR, the footage from the CCTV cameras installed inside the shop of the complainant was 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 registered seller of Hyundai vehicles) and discovered that the car was registered in the name of one Chander Mohan Singh. 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 and Navneet Dubey @ Golu were apprehended on the car bearing number T0723PB9868D. During the search of Aniket an air pistol toy and a order/judgment. 2 polythene bag containing jewelry weighing 435 grams were recovered. From Rahul, a polythene bag carrying 410 grams of silver jewelry was found. From Navneet 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. vi. That during ques-oning of the aforemen-oned accused, it was revealed that individuals namely Ankit Kumar, Karan i.e. the present pe--oner, Sachin, and Sanjay Kumar were also present during the incident, and thus, they were arrayed as accused vide GD No. 5 dated

20.01.2024. The statement given by Navneet 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 i.e the present pe--oner was also arrested, and a .315 bore pistol, two live cartridges, and a polythene bag containing 355 grams of silver jewelry were found in his possession.

¶5Role of the pe##oner Karan Kumar @ Babloo, i.e. the pe--oner, played an ac-ve and direct role in the dacoity at Sodhi Jewellers on 14/01/2024. He was one of the individuals who entered the shop armed with a pistol, threatening the complainant and par-cipa-ng in the loo-ng of valuables.

¶6Evidence against the Pe##oner: The evidence against Karan Kumar is compelling. Upon his arrest on 19/01/2024, 1 .315 bore pistol and two live cartridges were recovered from his possession. Addi-onally a polythene bag containing 355 grams of stolen silver jewelry was found on him, directly linking him to the stolen property from the dacoity. This recovery of weapons and stolen goods -es Karan Kumar to the crime scene and confirms his ac-ve par-cipa-on. Furthermore, the CCTV footage from the shop, support his involvement, iden-fying him as one of the key perpetrators of the armed dacoity.

¶7There is sufficient primafacie evidence connec!ng the pe!!oner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarcera!on should not be a replica of post-convic!on sentencing. Another factor that favors the pe!!oner is that co-accused Rahul, Aniket, Kishan and Sanjay have already got regular bails. order/judgment. 3

¶8As per paragraph 4 of the status report, the pe!!oner has been in custody since

19.01.2024. Per the custody cer!ficate dated 05.11.2024, the pe!!oner's total custody in this FIR is 09 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 further pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage.

¶9Without 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.

¶10Given 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.

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

¶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)

¶12This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶13The 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.

¶14Given 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 toJYOTI order/judgment. 4 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.

¶15Given 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.

¶16The condi ons men oned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to 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."

¶17Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the 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

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

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

20.11.2024 Jyo-II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 07.11.2024 Pronounced on: 20.11.2024 Karan Kumar ...Pe oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Vipan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the pe oner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. ****