Dharmender Alias Baga v. State of Haryana

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 439 30.06.2024 Rania, Disti. Sirsa 323, 324, 326, 506, 147, 149 IPC

¶1The pe!!oner incarcerated in athe FIR cap!oned above came before this Court under Sec!on 483 of Bhara!ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

¶2In paragraph 8 of the bail pe!!on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows: "2. That brief facts of the case FIR No.439 dated 30.6.2024 U/s 323/ 324/ 147/ 149/ 506/326 IPC, P.S. Rania was registered on the statement of Paramjit Singh son of Pargat Singh who has alleged that, "I am a resident of the above men+oned address and I work as a farmer, on 19.6.2024 at 7:30 am, I and my brother Chhinder Singh had gone to the field to get fodder for the animals. When we were cu2ng fodder, Pamma Singh, Bagga Singh sons of Sulkhan Singh and Sulkhan Singh and Jinder Singh and Karan Singh, Virendra Singh sons of Bagga Singh and Suraj son of order/judgment. 1 Jinder, residents of Ku7abad came and Pamma, Jinder Singh and Bagga had swords, Karan and Virendra had axes and others had s+cks, who a7acked me and my family as soon as they came. They started figh+ng and assaul+ng brother Chhinder Singh and Pamma hit me with a sword which hit my right palm and head and also hit my brother Chhinder's right leg and head and also hit my brother's le; hand. A;er this, all of them kept on bea+ng me and my brother due to which both our brothers got badly injured. When we raised an alarm, our farmer neighbours Ranjeet son of Karnail Singh and Amrik Singh son of Kashmir Singh, residents of Ku7abadh, who were working in their fields, came hearing our noise. Seeing them coming, they ran away and while leaving threatened us that today we have been saved but in future they will not leave us. All of them together have injured our both brothers. There was a lot of alterca+on between them regarding our pipeline, due to which they injured us."

¶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 his family."

¶5The State as well as counsel for the complainant opposes bail and refers to the status report.

¶6It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the status report, which read as follows: "10. That during the course of further inves+ga+on of the case, statement of the persons from the neighboring area were recorded and they have sworn their affidavit whereby the suspect namely i) Virender Singh, ii) Karan Singh sons of Bagga Singh @ Dharmender, iii) Suraj Singh son of Jinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh, iv) Sulakhan Singh son of Kishan Singh were not found involved in the occurrence and they were found innocent. Only the present pe++oner alongwith Ranjit Singh @ Pamma and Rajinder Singh @ Jinder Singh were found involved for the commission of offence. Sec+on 147/149 IPC were deleted and sec+on 34 IPC was added in this case."

¶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 order/judgment. 2

¶8As per paragraph 6 (i) of the bail pe!!on, the pe!!oner has been in custody since 04.09.2024 and the pe!!oner's total custody in this FIR is more than three and half months.

¶9Given 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.

¶10Without 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.

¶11Given 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.

¶12While 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 aties!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available)

¶13This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms.

¶14The 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.

¶15Given 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 atiempt by the accused to order/judgment. 3 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 Bhati v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶16Given 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 acquitial. 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 fiNeen 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 acquitial 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.

¶17The 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."

¶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 order/judgment. 4 official web page of this Court and atiest it to be a true copy. If the aties!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 aties!ng bonds.

¶21Petition 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: 02.12.2024 Pronounced on: 19.12.2024 Dharmender @ Baga ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. J.S. Thind, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. A.G. Haryana. Mr. Sushil K.Verma, Advocate and Mr. Rajat Verma, Advocate for the complainant. ****