Dalvir Singh Chahal @ Mithu v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons 257 10.10.2024 Sahnewal, Ludhiana Dis4. 329(3), 62, 324(4), 324(5), Police Commissionerate 303(2), 351(1), 351(3), 61(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS, 2023 and 25, 27 of Arms Act

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

¶2In paragraph 8 of the bail petton i.e. CRM-M-55825-2024 and as per para 8 of the status report the accused has the following criminal antecedents: order/judgment. 1 Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta2on

¶1229 16.12.202 436, 120-B IPC Sahnewal, Dis4. Police 0 Commissionerate

¶2193 03.11.202 323, 294, 295, 506, Sahnewal, Dis4. Police 0 34 IPC Commissionerate

¶3126 29.05.201 447, 511, 427, 506, - 9 148, 149 IPC, 25/27 of Arms Act

¶4142 25.07.200 61 Excise Act Sahnewal

¶581 2010 15 of NDPS Act Payal

¶622 22.01.201 307, 452, 427, 506 Payal 1 IPC

¶7198 - 436, 120-B IPC Sahnewal

¶8242 - 447, 506, 511, 148, Sahnewal, Ludhiana 149, 120-B IPC

¶3In paragraph 2.14 of the bail petton i.e. CRM-M-56915-2024 and as per para 8 of the status report the accused has the following criminal antecedents: Sr. No. FIR No. Dated/Year Offenses Police Sta2on

¶160 - 447, 511, 427, 506, 148, 149, 120-B Dehlon, IPC Ludhiana

¶2126 29.05.2019 447, 511, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC, Sahnewal, 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act Ludhiana

¶3242 2022 447, 511, 427, 506, 120-B, 148, 149 Sahnewal, IPC Ludhiana

¶4257 2022 447, 511, 427, 506, 120-B, 148, 149 Sahnewal, IPC Ludhiana

¶4The facts of the case are being taken from the translated copy of the FIR annexed in the bail petton i.e. CRM-M-55825-2024, which reads as follows: "Statement of Mandeep Singh Son of Late Jagjit Singh Resident of Village Tibba Police Staton Sahnewal District Ludhiana. Aged around 45 years, Mob No.97819-xxxxx, stated that I am a resident of the said address, I am engaged in agriculture, my land is near village Tibba Canal, where I have planted millet crop. On dated 23.08.2024 at around 07:00 AM I went to visit my land and I saw that Jagjeevan Singh son of Gurdeep Singh resident of House No. 62/2 GT Road Daba Road Ludhiana, Dalveer Singh alias Mithu son of Davinder Singh, Davinder Singh son of Malkit Singh Vasian Sahnewal district Ludhiana, Satveer Singh alias Lali son of Jeet Singh, Hinda Vasian village Paddi police staton Dehle district Ludhiana along with 10/15 unknown persons Jagjeevan Singh was ploughing my millet crop with tractor. When I stopped him from doing so, Davinder Singh took out a revolver from his pocket and Satveer Singh alias Lali was order/judgment. 2 holding a rifle in his hand, who threatened me that if you went ahead, then we will kill you right here and throw you in the canal, so I was afraid. I couldn't do anything because they ploughed and destroyed my sown millet crop while I was watching. They broke my electricity connecton in my meter which is in my name. The aforesaid people stole my agricultural implements people stole it and placed their container in my land with the intenton of taking possession. Before this, the aforesaid people had tried to occupy this land of mine, regarding which on my statements FIR No: 60, 66/2015 Police Staton Dehlo, FIR No: 126/2019, 229/2020, 242/2022 Police Staton Sahnewal, Ludhiana were registered against them. The ttle of the land is in my name and I am in possession of the land. Who like this, the above accused repeatedly try to occupy my land. All the above accused are persons with criminal background. Till date I have personally inquired about 10/15 unknown persons but I could not find anything about those 10/15 unknown persons. Today I was going to the police staton to report this incident staton, you met me at Dharor Sua Pulli, Dehle Road, Sahnewal, Ludhiana. I have got my statement recorded with you, heard it read it and found it to be correct. Appropriate legal acton be taken against the above accused. xxx xxx"

¶5The pettoners' counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditons and contends that further pre-trial incarceraton would cause an irreversible injustce to the pettoners and their family.

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

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following portons of the reply, which read as follows: "5. ROLE OF THE PRESENT PETITIONER: in CRM-M-55825-2024 That the Pettoner/accused along with other co-accuseds namely co-accused Jagjiwan Singh, Davinder Singh, Satveer Singh alias Lali, Hinda and 10/15 unknown persons forcefully entered into the land of the complainant, they had threatened the complainant. The Pettoner/Accused with other co-accused ploughed and destroyed the millet crop sown on the land of the complainant. Furthermore, the Pettoner had stolen the Plough (suhaga) of the complainant.

¶5ROLE OF THE PRESENT PETITIONER: in CRM-M-56915-2024 That the Pettoner/accused along with other co-accuseds namely co-order/judgment. 3 accused Dalveer Singh alias Mithu, Davinder Singh, Satveer Singh alias Lali, Hinda and 10/15 unknown persons forcefully entered into the land of the complainant, they had threatened the complainant. The Pettoner/Accused with other co-accused ploughed and destroyed the millet crop sown on the land of the complainant. Furthermore, the pettoner had stolen the Plough (suhaga) of the complainant."

¶8Counsel for the complainant has also opposed the bail and submits that the pettoners along with other co-accused destroyed the bajra crop and also threatened to kill him along with their weapons in order to dispossess the complainant from his land. But it is further relevant to menton that the pettoners along with other co-accused destroyed the complainant's motor connecton and took along agricultural equipment of the complainant. He further submits that the complainant is in the possession of the land and whereas the revenue record the pettoners are shown as the owner of the disputed land and the Khasra Girdawari is forged and incorrect document. Further, the forged sale deed was executed by Bhag Singh in favour of Harvinder Singh. Therefore, the registered power of a4orney executed by Harvinder Singh in favour of pettoners are a bogus document.

¶9The incident took place on 23.08.2024 but the complainant reported the ma4er to the police only on 10.10.2024. There is no explanaton for the delay. The delay gives a scope for deliberatons which can be any improvements and concealments. Further, despite being armed with weapons, there is no allegaton of any of the accused using the fire arms. Thus, in the entrety of facts and circumstances, given the delay and non-used of fire arms, although the allegatons might be sufficient to launch prosecuton or even to proceed with the trial but this Court is only considering the evidence for the purpose of bail and it is not case for custodial interrogaton or pre-trial incarceraton.

¶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 the pre-trial incarceraton at this stage.

¶12Without commentng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances order/judgment. 4 peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentoned above, the pettoners make a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the tme it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

¶13Given above, provided the pettoners are not required in any other case, the pettoners shall be released on bail in the FIR captoned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satsfacton of the Arrestng Officer, and if the ma4er 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.

¶14While furnishing a personal bond, the pettoners shall menton the following personal identficaton details:

¶1AADHAR number

¶2Passport number (If available) and when the a4estng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶15This order is subject to the pettoners' complying with the following terms. The pettoners shall abide by all statutory bond conditons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pettoners 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.

¶16The pettoners are directed to join the investgaton 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 Investgator. The pettoners shall be in deemed custody for Secton 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Secton 23 of BSA, 2023. The pettoners 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 pettoners shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶17Given the nature of the allegatons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pettoners shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victm untl the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. order/judgment. 5 This Court is imposing this conditon to rule out any a4empt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victm. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investgaton, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bha4 v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶18Given the background of allegatons against the pettoners, it becomes paramount to protect the members of society, and incapacitatng the accused would be one of the primary optons untl the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acqui4al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restricton is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sancton]. Given the nature of the allegatons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pettoners shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuniton, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiOeen days of release from prison and inform the Investgator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pettoners shall be enttled to renew and reclaim them in case of acqui4al in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restrictng firearms would instll confidence in the victm(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeatng the offense.

¶19The conditons mentoned 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 Petton (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 conditons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportonal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditons that would result in the deprivaton of rights and libertes must be eschewed."

¶20In 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 pettoners notce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. order/judgment. 6

¶21This bail is conditonal, and the foundatonal conditon is that if the pettoners indulge in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applicaton for cancellaton of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail.

¶22Any observaton made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶23A certfied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pettoners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a4est it to be a true copy. If the a4estng officer wants to verify its authentcity, such an officer can also verify its authentcity and may download and use the downloaded copy for a4estng bonds.

¶24Pe22ons are allowed in terms mentoned above. All pending applicatons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

27.01.2025 Jyot-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-55825-2024 Reserved on: 15.01.2025 Pronounced on: 27.01.2025 Dalvir Singh Chahal @ Mithu ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CRM-M-56915-2024 Jagjiwan Singh ...Pettoner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. V.P.S. Mithewal, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Gupta, Advocate, for the pettoner in CRM-M-55825-2024. Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate, for the pettoner in CRM-M-56915-2024. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. P.S. Punia, Advocate, for the complainant. ****