Karanbir Singh @ Karan v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 81 27.10.2024 Tarsikka, DisI. Amritsar, Punjab 105, 3 (5) BNS

¶1The pe!!oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap!oned above has come up before this Court under Sec!on 482 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an!cipatory bail.

¶2In paragraph 10 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 dated 10.12.2024 filed by the State, which reads as follows: "2. That the brief and relevant facts of the case are that the aforesaid case FIR No.81 dated 27.10.2024 was registered on the basis of statement of Dalbir Singh son of Mehnga Singh, who had alleged therein that on

26.10.2024 at about 09:00 AM, he and his grandson Warispreet Singh was present at their house and Gurjant Singh alias Janta, Karan Singh (pe11oner) and Lakha Singh came at his house and took his grandson Warispreet Singh with him and when his grandson Warispreet Singh did not return 1ll late night he and his nephew Narinder Singh reached Bus order/judgment. 1 Stop Government School, Gehri Road to search his grandson, where he came to know that his grandson Warispreet Singh and Gurjant Singh had gone on motorcycle No.PB09-W-8670 and co-accused Lakha Singh had gone on Ford Tractor-3600 and Karan Singh (pe11oner) was accompanying Lakha Singh on tractor towards Gehri side, whereupon he and his nephew went towards Gehri side and when they crossed some distance from Dashmesh Nagar, they saw Gurjant Singh was riding the motorcycle and his grandson Warispreet Singh was a pillion rider and co-accused Lakha Singh did a stunt by li:ing the front por1on of tractor in air and in the mean1me Gurjant Singh applied the brakes of motorcycle and the front por1on of the tractor fell upon his grandson Warispreet Singh, which resulted in serious injuries on Warispreet Singh and he (Warispreet Singh) succumbed to his injuries on the way to hospital. xxx xxx"

¶4The pe!!oner's counsel argued that the deceased and his friend were doing stunts on a bike and had friendly rela!ons. He further argued that the pe!!oner Karanbir was not driving the Tractor, but Lakhbir was doing the stunts.

¶5The 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.

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

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the reply, which read as follows: "5. That the inves1ga1ng officer also took the test report from Head Mechanic, Amritsar (Rural) rela1ng to the tractor which was used by the pe11oner and co-accused Lakha Singh in performing stunts and it was reported by the Head Mechanic, Amritsar (Rural) that the Diesel Pump of tractor was changed and Turbo pump was extra fiAed on the tractor to increase the accelera1on of the tractor and changes were made in gearbox of the tractor. Role of the pe11oner

¶6That as per the version of the complainant Dalbir Singh, the pe11oner a:er sharing common inten1on with the other nominated co-accused Lakha Singh and Gurjant Singh performed the stunt on Ford Tractor driven by Lakha Singh and the pe11oner was sea1ng on mud guard of the tractor and while performing a stunt the tractor fall upon his grandson order/judgment. 2 Warispreet Singh, resul1ng into death of Warispreet Singh. Evidence against the pe11oner

¶7That the evidence against the pe11oner is in the form of oral statement of the complainant Dalbir Singh recorded under sec1on 161 Cr.P.C. by the inves1ga1ng officer, which is corroborated with the Post-Mortem report of Warispreet Singh."

¶8A perusal of the reply reveals that Karanbir was not driving the Tractor but was siCng on the mudguard, and it was the main accused, Lakhbir, who was driving the Tractor and doing the stunts.

¶9Pre-trial incarcera!on should not be a replica of post-convic!on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu!on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an!cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus!fy custodial interroga!on or pre-trial incarcera!on.

¶10Given the above, the penal provisions invoked 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 custodial interroga!on or the pre-trial incarcera!on at this stage. Without 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.

¶11The inves!ga!on indicates that the pe!!oner is not the main accused, so the pe!!oner's bail shall not be treated as a precedent for gran!ng bail to the other co-accused with a higher role.

¶12Given above, provided the pe!!oner is not required in any other case, the pe!!oner shall be released on an!cipatory bail in the FIR cap!oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa!sfac!on of the Arres!ng Officer, and if the maIer is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep!ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa!sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.

¶13While 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 aIes!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available) order/judgment. 3

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶14This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶15The pe11oner is directed to join the inves1ga1on 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 Inves1gator. The pe!!oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec!on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec!on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe!!oner shall join the inves!ga!on as and when called by the Inves!ga!ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves!ga!on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu!on will be open to seeking cancella!on of the bail. During the inves!ga!on, the pe!!oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

¶16The 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.

¶17In case the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta!on arraigns another sec!on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec!on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec!ons men!oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec!on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec!ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec!ons men!oned above; then, in that case, the Inves!gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe!!oner no!ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.

¶18This bail is condi!onal, and the founda!onal condi!on is that if the pe!!oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica!on for cancella!on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.

¶19Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶20A 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 aIest it to be a true copy. If the aIes!ng officer wants to verify its authen!city, such an officer can also verify its authen!city and may order/judgment. 4 download and use the downloaded copy for aIes!ng bonds.

¶21Pe11on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

19.12.2024 Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 16.12.2024 Pronounced on: 19.12.2024 Karanbir Singh @ Karan ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. H.S. BaIh, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, for the complainant. ****