Parmjit Kaur v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. GD No. Dated Police Sta-on Sec-ons

10.09.2024 Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib 332-C, 115(2), 118, 190, 191(3), 109 of BNS IN FIR No. Dated Police Sta-on Sec-ons

30.08.2024 Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib 115(2), 118, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS
 The pe

oner apprehending arrest in the GD 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.  In paragraph 11 of the bail pe

on, the accused declares that she has no criminal antecedents.

¶3The facts and allega ons are being taken from the GD, which reads as follows: "At this me, the statement is being recorded that S/Ct. Baljeet Singh, who is present at the staon, has made the following statement: "On the date of 29.08.2024, around 6 PM, I, Gurdev Singh, Sukha (son of Harmesh Singh), and Sunny (son of Kulwant Singh), who are my nephews, were repairing a machine at Gurtej Singh's house. At that me, our neighbor Baghel Singh (son of Hardev Singh) from the village Bharpoor Garh, Thana Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib, came to us and told my brother Gurtej Singh that our electric wire had been damaged, and if he could fix it. My brother Gurtej Singh went to fix the wire. Meanwhile, Harpreet Singh (son of Birbal Singh), who works in the electricity department privately, came and started arguing with Baghel Singh. Harpreet Singh tried to stop my brother from arguing, saying that one should not speak in such a manner to an elder. This led to an argument between them, and Harpreet Singh le8. A8er a short "me, Harpreet Singh returned with a group of people including Bal Singh (son of Birbal Singh), Parmjeet Kaur (wife of Birbal Singh), Jaspreet Singh (alias Manga), Hushiar Singh (son of Preetam Singh), Baljeet Kaur (wife of Hushiar Singh), and others, armed with weapons. They began to enter our house with the inten"on of a:acking Gurtej Singh. I tried to stop them, but Hushiar Singh struck me on the arm with a s"ck and pushed me while they con"nued to assault Gurtej Singh. Jaspreet Singh (alias Manga) struck Gurtej Singh on the le8 side of his head with a sharp weapon, causing him to fall. As he fell, Harpreet Singh struck him on the right side of the head with a sword. Iqbal Singh (alias Pali) also struck Gurtej Singh on the back of his head with a weapon. They then dragged him out of the house and began bea"ng him. Baljeet Kaur and Parmjeet Kaur started throwing bricks at our tractor, damaging it severely. When my nephew Sunny and I started shou"ng for help, the people of the village gathered, and seeing them approach, the assailants fled, leaving their vehicle (registra"on number PB 13 BG 6918, model Splendor) and weapons behind. They were picked up by other unknown individuals in their vehicles. Had the villagers not gathered and followed them, they could have killed my brother Gurtej Singh. I then took my brother in my vehicle (registra"on number PB 21A 4995, model) and admi:ed him to Civil Hospital Amloh. Due to the severity of his injuries, he was referred to Civil Hospital Fatehgarh Sahib and later to GMCH Sector 32, Chandigarh, where he is currently under treatment. The reason for the dispute was that my brother was fixing the electric wire for our neighbor Baghel Singh, which led to an argument between Harpreet Singh and Baghel Singh. My brother tried to stop him, and as a result, Harpreet Singh and others a:acked Gurtej Singh. Due to severe head injuries, my brother is unable to provide a statement at this "me, which is why I am submiAng my statement. I request strict ac"on against the accused individuals. My statement has been read and heard, and it is correct. xxx xxx" order/judgment. 2

¶4Counsel for the pe

oner submits that it is a cross case registered at the instance of pe

oner's party. He argued that Gurtej Singh had sustained injuries in an alterca on but no injury is a=ributed to pe

oner Paramjit Kaur. The pe

oner's involvement was limited that she damaged the property and as per the allega ons she was seen throwing bricks at the tractor.

¶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 her family.

¶6The State's counsel opposes bail.

¶7Considering the fact that no injury is a=ributed to the pe

oner and she is a woman and her role was only to the extent that she damaged the property and was seen throwing bricks at the tractor, it is not a case for custodial interroga on or pre-trial incarcera on.

¶8Pre-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.

¶9Given 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.

¶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.

¶11Given above, provided the pe

oner is not required in any other case, the pe

oner shall be released on bail in the GD 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

¶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 a=es!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. 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.

¶14The 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.

¶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 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.

¶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 acqui=al. 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 order/judgment. 4 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 fiLeen 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 acqui=al 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."

¶18In case the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta on arraigns another sec on of any penal offense in this GD, 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.

¶19This 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.

¶20The 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.

¶21Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶22A 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.

¶23Pe--on allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

13.01.2025 Jyo -II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 13.01.2025 Parmjit Kaur ...Pe oner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present: Mr. Akhil Dadwal, Advocate, for the pe oner. (through V.C) Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G, Punjab. ****