Lakhbir Singh Alias Lakha v. State of Punjab

ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. Dated Police Sta2on Sec2ons 81 27.10.2024 Tarsikka, Dis/. 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 12 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 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 and Lakha Singh (pe33oner) came at his house and took his grandson Warispreet Singh with him. When his grandson Warispreet Singh did not return home for a long 3me, he and his nephew Narinder Singh reached Bus Stop Government School, Gehri Road to search for his grandson, order/judgment. 1 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 (pe33oner) had gone on Ford Tractor-3600. Karan Singh was accompanying Lakha Singh (pe33oner) 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. The pe33oner Lakha Singh did a stunt by li:ing the front por3on of tractor in air and in the mean3me Gurjant Singh applied the brakes of motorcycle and the front por3on of the tractor fell upon his grandson Warispreet Singh, which resulted in serious injuries to 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 it is not a case of culpable homicide.

¶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 inves3ga3ng officer also took the test report from Head Mechanic, Amritsar (Rural) rela3ng to the tractor which was used by the pe33oner and co-accused Karan 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 accelera3on of the tractor and changes were made in gearbox of the tractor. Role of the pe33oner

¶6That as per the version of the complainant Dalbir Singh, Lakhbir Singh (pe33oner) a:er sharing common inten3on with the other nominated co-accused Karan Singh and Gurjant Singh performed the stunt on Ford Tractor driven by Lakha Singh and the pe33oner Lakha Singh did a stunt by li:ing the front por3on of tractor and the front por3on of the tractor order/judgment. 2 fell upon his grandson Warispreet Singh, resul3ng into death of Warispreet Singh. Evidence against the pe33oner

¶7That the evidence against the pe33oner is in the form of oral statement of the complainant Dalbir Singh recorded under sec3on 161 Cr.P.C. by the inves3ga3ng officer, which is corroborated with the Post-Mortem report of Warispreet Singh. The inves3ga3ng officer also took the test report from the Head Mechanic, Amritsar (Rural) rela3ng to the tractor which was used by the pe33oner and co-accused Karan Singh in performing stunts and it was reported that the Diesel Pump of tractor was changed and the Turbo pump was extra fiAed on the tractor to increase the accelera3on of the tractor and changes were made in the gearbox of the tractor."

¶8I have watched the video clip, and it clearly shows that the pe!!oner and his accomplice were driving a tractor on a public road at a dangerously high speed, and it is clear that they were doing motor sports.

¶9The relevant por!on of S. 100 of BNS, 2023, reads as follows:

¶100Whoever causes death by doing an act with the inten!on of causing death, or with the inten!on of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

¶10The relevant por!on of S. 106 of BNS, 2023, reads as follows:

¶106(1) Whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amoun!ng to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip!on for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if such act is done by a registered medical prac!!oner while performing medical procedure, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip!on for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine

¶11When someone does stunts on a public road, endangering public safety, and when the motor sport is not being conducted with the knowledge of the traffic control authori!es and ample !me has been given to them to take preven!ve steps, the acts of public stunt, it leads to death would fall in the defini!on of culpable homicide and if death is not caused then an a/empt to cause culpable homicide and such acts would not fall only under sec!on 106 BNS [Analogous to 304-A IPC, 1860] because of the requisite knowledge that such an act is likely to result into death or cause death. There is no JYOTI reason to believe they would be unaware of the consequences of motorsport with a order/judgment. 3 modified vehicle on a public road, and such conduct would depict a callous and unconcerned aItude towards the pedestrians and another vehicle on the road where they were doing a motor stunt. On the face of it, such an act would not fall under rash and negligent driving, but primafacie amounts to culpable homicide.

¶12In the present case, the Tractor was modified by fiIng an extra turbo pump to increase the accelera!on. The video points towards its high speed on a public road. If a soK stand is taken towards such stunts, the roads, which are already unsafe, will become more unsafe for pedestrians and two-wheelers, which account for the maximum number of casual!es for pedestrians and two-wheelers in road accidents in this region.

¶13A perusal of the bail pe!!on and the documents a/ached primafacie points towards the pe!!oner's involvement and does not make out a case for an!cipatory bail. The impact of crime would also not jus!fy an!cipatory bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the pe!!oner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶14Any observa!on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶15Pe22on dismissed. Interim order is recalled with immediate effect. All pending applica!ons, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

19.12.2024 Jyo!-II Whether reportable: No. order/judgment. 4

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