Gagandeep Singh @ Gagna v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 50 22.07.2024 Sandaur, Dis+. 109(1), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 191(3), Malerkotla 190/61 (2A) of BNS and 25/54/59 of Arms Act

¶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.

¶2As per paragraph 16 of the bail pe!!on, the pe!!oner was involved in two other cases. However, he has been acqui+ed in both cases.

¶3The facts and allega!ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows: "xxx xxx Then, injured Jaswinder Singh got recorded his statement to the effect that on 21.07.2024, at about 01.00 PM, he along with his mother had gone to biscuit factory of his parental uncle namely, Tarsem Singh son of Ajaib Singh, resident of Village Kalyan for prepara)on of biscuits, where his aunt Baljeet Kaur was also present. At about 02.15 PM, his brother Gurdhian Singh also came there. At about 02:30 P.M., one Swi/ Car, one Scorpio Car bearing registra)on No.PB-11-CZ-9361, followed by one Alto Car and i-20 Car came from the side of his village. The occupants of the car were namely, Harpreet Singh @ Happy son of Rajinder Singh armed with Gandasa, Manpreet Singh @ Mani son of Rajinder Singh order/judgment. 1 armed with Iron Rod, Gurkamal Singh @ Landa son of Ruldu Singh armed with Kirpan, Baljit Singh @ Booby son of Rajinder Singh armed with S)ck, Mani son of Singara Singh armed with Iron Daah came out of the vehicle. From the car, behind Jasni son of Harmail Singh armed with S)ck, Yad @ Yadu armed with Iron Rod and 15-16 uniden)fied persons came out who were armed with S)cks, Iron Rods and Kirpan. Harpreet Singh @ Happy raised lalkara not to spare the complainant Jaswinder Singh and Gurdhian Singh and that they be taught a lesson for opposing them. Complainant and his brother ran away from the spot. Harpreet Singh @ Happy and Manpreet Singh @ Mani again raised lalkara to catch hold of them. Harpreet Singh gave a Gandasa blow to his brother Gurdhian Singh who fell down near biscuit factory. Manpreet Singh @ Mani gave a blow on his head. Manpreet Singh gave an Iron Rod blow on the head of his brother Gurdhian Singh with an inten)on to kill him. His brother fell down whereas he raised hue and cry. Then Gurkamal Singh gave Kirpan blow on the le/ knee of his brother Gurdhian Singh. Gurkamal Singh gave another blow on the le/ knee of his brother. Then Gurkamal Singh gave Kirpan blow on his head with an inten)on to kill him. Manpreet Singh gave an Iron Rod blow on his head and he fell down. Harpreet Singh @ Happy gave Gandasa blow on the le/ arm of his brother Gurdhian Singh due to which his le/ arm got fractured. Remaining accused with their respec)ve weapons also inflicted injuries. His paternal Uncle Tarsem Singh, his paternal aunt Baljit Kaur and mother Harjit Kaur raised alarm and on the road many passerby were gathered. Then all the accused along with their respec)ve weapons fled away from the spot on their vehicle. Around 15/20 days ago, a dispute was occurred in his Village with which he and his family members have nothing to do. Gorakh Nath son of Harnam Singh and Rajinder Singh Fauji son of Nirmal Singh of their Village, who uses to stare at him and used to extend threats that they will teach him a lesson, due to which Gorakh Nath and Rajinder Singh nurturing the grudge Harpreet Singh @ Happy, Manpreet Singh @ Mani, Gurkamal Singh, Baljit Singh, Mani, Jashni, Yaad @ Yadu and 15/16 uniden)fied persons in connivance with each other gave bea)ngs to him and his brother Gurdhian Singh. Then his father, Avtar Singh arranged a vehicle and got admiDed him and his brother Gurdhian Singh to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, where a/er giving first aid, doctor has referred them to Rajindra Hospital, Pa)ala, where they are under treatment. Legal ac)on may be taken against said accused persons." order/judgment.

¶4Counsel for the pe!!oner submits that the pe!!oner has been falsely implicated and he has not named in the FIR. He further submits that there is delay of one day in registra!on of the FIR because the incident took place on 21.07.2024, whereas, the FIR was registered on the next date i.e. 22.07.2024. He further submits there is contradic!on in statement of Avtar Singh and the vic!m.

¶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 status report.

¶7It would be appropriate to refer to the following por!ons of the status report, which read as follows: "16. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER That the present FIR was registered against the co-accused of the pe))oner and the name of the pe))oner was cropped up during inves)ga)on and based on the statement of Avtar Singh, the father of complainant Jaswinder Singh. There are specific allega)ons against the pe))oner to be a member of unlawful assembly which was armed with deadly weapons and leashed out the murderous aDack upon the complainant and his brother, whereby they due were badly aDacked on their heads, legs, and they remained admiDed in P.G.I., Chandigarh and Rajendra Hospital, Pa)ala. Co-accused Gorakh Nath, Rajinder Singh and others have previous rivalry with the complainant party. The pe))oner and five of his other co-villagers belong to Raikot, had come all the way to the village of main accused Harpreet Singh @ Happy to execute this murderous aDack. During inves)ga)on, CCTV footage was checked, which shows that the pe))oner was not only member of unlawful assembly, which was armed with deadly weapons, but also ac)vely has par)cipated in the commission of this heinous crime. The pe))oner along with his other co-accused inflicted seven injuries on the person of complainant and his brother with an inten)on to kill them. The photograph of injured persons speaks volume of the intensity of this murderous aDack and it is sheer luck that injured(s) have survived this aDack. Due to these injuries, the complainant and his brother remained admiDed in Rajindra Hospital, Pa)ala. So, a specific role is aDributed to the pe))oner in the commission of present offence." order/judgment. 3

¶8A perusal of the vic!m's statement reveals that neither the pe!!oner's name has been men!oned nor any role is a+ributed to him. He may be part of 15-16 uniden!fied persons but no injury is stated to have been a+ributed to the pe!!oner, as such, it is not a case for custodial interroga!on or pre-trial incarcera!on.

¶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.

¶11The inves!ga!on indicates that the pe!!oner is not the main accused, was neither named in the FIR nor is any injury a+ributed to him. For these reasons, 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.

¶12Without 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.

¶13Given 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 Arres!ng Officer, and if the ma+er 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.

¶14While 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 a+es!ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

¶3Mobile number (If available)

¶4E-Mail id (If available) order/judgment. 4

¶15This order is subject to the pe!!oner's complying with the following terms. The 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.

¶16The pe))oner is directed to join the inves)ga)on 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 Inves)gator. 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.

¶17Given 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 a+empt by the accused to 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 Bha+ v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.

¶18Given the background of allega!ons against the pe!!oner, it becomes paramount to protect 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 acqui+al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restric!on 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 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 of release from prison and inform the Inves!gator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe!!oner shall be en!tled to renew and reclaim them in case of acqui+al in this case, provided otherwise permissible under 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 order/judgment. 5 and repea!ng the offense.

¶19The 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."

¶20In 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.

¶21This bail is condi#onal, and the founda#onal condi#on is that if the pe##oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an applica#on for cancella#on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall have the liberty to cancel this bail.

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

¶23A 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 a+est it to be a true copy. If the a+es!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 a+es!ng bonds.

¶24Pe11on allowed in terms men!oned above. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA)

29.01.2025 JUDGE Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 07.01.2025 Pronounced on: 29.01.2025 Gagandeep Singh @ Gagna ...Pe!!oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate, for the pe!!oner. Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab. ****