Rajesh Kumar v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 80 30.06.2024 Urban Estate, Patala, Disti. 364, 342, 323, 506, 120-B IPC Patala and 25 of Arms 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.

¶2In paragraph 13 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 it is respec>ully submited that the present case/FIR No. 80 (supra) was registered pursuant to the statement dated 30.06.2024 of Rahul Sharma (complainant), sta*ng therein that he was engaged in the occupa*on of plying E-Rickshaw. On 28.06.2024, at about 2 PM, when he going to his house, Eknoor son of Harjot Singh alias Harry hit his scooty on his E-Rickshaw by driving towards it. Subsequent thereto, they had an alterca*on with each other and therea5er, the colony residents sent them to their respec*ve houses by persuading them. Then on 29.06.2024 at about 10:30 AM, as per his daily rou*ne, he was present outside New Bus order/judgment. 1 Stand on his E-Rickshaw wai*ng for passengers, Harjot Singh alias Harry alongwith 7-8 unknown persons came at the spot and started hurling abuses to him by saying that how dare he entered into alterca*on with his son Eknoor. Therea5er, Harjot Singh alias Harry alongwith his 7-8 accomplices gave bea*ngs on his person and forcibly made the complainant sit in their white coloured car. When the complainant started raising alarm, then Harjot Singh alias Harry took out the pistol and pointed it on the forehead of complainant and threatened that he would fire arm shot if he (complainant) would raise any alarm. Then Harjot Singh alias Harry *ed a piece of cloth on the eyes of complainant by making him sit in their legs and then drove the car and all the abovesaid persons started giving bea*ngs on his person. On the way, a5er about a period of 1 hour, the aforemen*oned persons un*ed cloth from the eyes of complainant and Harjot Singh alias Harry made a video call to one Vishal alias Mithe Chol and said that they had kidnapped Rahul (complainant), upon which, Vishal alias Mithe Chol said that he should not be le5 unhurt that day. Therea5er, the aforemen*oned persons again gave him bea*ngs and said that he should not be le5 alive on that day. Therea5er, Harjot Singh alias Harry atacked on the head of complainant and his accomplices have a number of blows on his body and chest, due to which, complainant became unconscious. Then Harjot Singh alias Harry alongwith his accomplices threw the complainant on the passage in injured and unconscious condi*on and a5er that he was admited in AIIMS Bilaspur (Himachal Pradesh) with the help of passers-by. Hence, present case/FIR was registered against the aforemen*oned Harjot Singh alias Harry, Vishal alias Mithe Chol and 7-8 unknown persons.

¶3That during the course of inves*ga*on, complainant came present before the inves*ga*ng officer on 03.07.2024 and recorded his supplementary statement to the effect that he was thrown in the unconscious condi*on by the accused persons above Ropar in Himachal and the passers-by and local police helped him and admited him in AIIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. The complainant further stated that he had come to know that Harjot Singh alias Harry had used his car in the offence, which was Er*ga bearing registra*on no. PB-11-DE-8837 and the unknown accomplices were Mohit, Munish Kumar, Billa, Karan, Rohit, Saurav and Rohan (present pe**oner). Accordingly, the aforemen*oned persons were JYOTI arrayed as accused in the present case/FIR." order/judgment. 2

¶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 reply. Counsel for the complainant also opposes the bail.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the reply, which read as follows: "8. That it is respec>ully submited that the complainant also iden*fied the pe**oner in the video (Annexure R-1) and the pe**oner was the same person, who was giving slap blows to the complainant.

¶10ROLE OF PETITIONER: That the pe**oner alongwith his accomplices gave bea*ngs on the person of complainant, then kidnapped him from New Bus Stand Pa*ala and threw him in the area of Himachal ahead of Ropar in unconscious condi*on."

¶11EVIDENCE AGAINST PETITIONER:- That from the perusal of video (Annexure R-1), it is clearly evident that the pe**oner is accompanying the other co-accused and he is clearly seen giving slap blows on the person of the complainant."

¶7Perusal of the petton indicates that the complainant had borrowed money from co-accused of pettoner which was not returned by the complainant despite several requests. On 28.06.2024, the said accused's son hit the complainant on his e-rickshaw with a scooter which resulted in an altercaton between them. The following day, accused Harjot Singh @ Harry along with the other accused including pettoner individuals, allegedly confronted and physically assaulted the complainant. Said Harjot Singh @ Harry was in possession of a pistol, which he used to threaten the complainant, compelling him to enter his white car and preventng him from raising an alarm.

¶8The main allegaton against the pettoner is that he physically assaulted the complainant and hurled abuses against him.

¶9State counsel has drawn the atienton of this Court to a video recording which was recorded by the accused themselves probably with a view to extortng money. The footage shows the complainant already injured while being assaulted, suggestng that he had already been subjected to cruelty and mistreatment. As per the video recording, one individual is seen driving the car. order/judgment. 3 Additonally, the video depicts the Pettoner aggressively abusing and mercilessly beatng the complainant, who visibly appeared to be injured with several bruises. All of them were involved as they had a common intenton to threaten the complainant, but he is the person was actvely hurling abuse and mercilessly beatng the complainant. One other accused was recording the entre incident in the car. The reply of the state specifies that the pettoner was the one who was physically assaultng the complainant in the video.

¶10The depicton of cruelty in the video, coupled with the doctor's statement which notes six blunt-force bruises on the complainant, clearly indicates that he was subjected to mistreatment. Furthermore, the video captures the accused individuals, especially the pettoner, not only commiGng the assault but also displaying a sense of pride in their actons as they were recording the incident, posing before the camera and boastng while repeatedly atiacking the injured complainant which indicates no sense of remorse. The pettoner was also contnuously hurling abuses at the complainant. This further indicates their cruel intent to harm the complainant who appeared to be defenseless. Additonally, the State's reply states that the complainant was abandoned in an unconscious state on a passage, from where passers-by took him to AIIMS Bilaspur, which only adds on to the inhumane treatment of the complainant.

¶11Cruelty, in any form, erodes the moral fabric of society and is a threat to the principles of humanity and justce. When cruelty is normalized or leJ unchecked, it sends a wrong message to society as it emboldens individuals to exploit and harm others without facing any consequences. Cruelty furthermore violates the inherent dignity and rights of individuals that are consttutonally protected. The deterrence of such cruel and inhumane behavior is crucial to preserve basic rights of individuals and create awareness amongst society.

¶12There is sufficient prima facie evidence connectng the pettoner with the crime, his involvement, and his complete knowledge; thus, he is not enttled to bail.

¶13A perusal of the bail petton and the documents atiached prima facie points towards the pettoner's involvement and does not make out a case for antcipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not justfy antcipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pettoner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶14Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. order/judgment. 4

¶15Petition dismissed. Interim orders are recalled with immediate effect. All pending applicatons, if there are any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

30.01.2025 Jyoti-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 15.01.2025 Pronounced on: 30.01.2025 Rajesh Kumar ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate, for the pettoner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Fariad Singh Virk, Advocate for the complainant. ****