Amrik Singh Alias Amrik v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 06.03.2025

Pronounced on: 25.03.2025 Amrik Singh @ Amrik

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Daljeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. A.S. Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 19.07.2024 Sadar Hoshiarpur 61(2), 216, 318(4), 336(3), 337, 339, 340(2) of BNS 1.

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2.

In paragraph 9 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from copy of the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, which reads as follows: "...In this case, FIR No.132 dated 19.07.2024, under Section 61(2), 216, 318(4), 336(3), 337, 340(2), 339 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur, has been registered against Yashpal, Vipin Kumar, Kaludin and Amrik Singh on the basis of direction issued vide letter No.794 dated 19.07.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. It was stated therein that in case FIR No.65 dated 26.04.2020, under Section 460, 148, 149, 302, 411, 34 of Indian Penal Code, Police Station Bullowal, Hoshiarpur, an application was moved for confirmation of order dated 02.07.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court and to

accept the bail bonds of accused Surinder Singh alias Sunny. The Hon'ble High Court had ordered to release accused Surinder Singh alias Sunny on record bail subject to his furnishing personal bond with two sureties of the like amount and one surety shall be resident of District Hoshiarpur to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. The order was verified and the applicant was directed to furnish bail bonds in the sum of One Lakh with two sureties including one surety residing at Hoshiarpur alongwith affidavit of the accused mentioning conditions detailed in the bail order. Accordingly, two surety bonds were furnished by Yashpal and Vipin Kumar. They were identified by Kaludin and Lambardar Amrik Singh. Alongwith surety bonds of Yashpal, Jamabandi for the year 2022-23 of village Bhangala was filed.

In both the surety bonds there were valuation applications addressed to the Tehsildar, Mukerian. But the same did not bear signatures of the applicant. Due to doubtful nature of the documents, the Reader of the Court upon direction by the Learned Magistrate verified the genuineness of the documents from Tehsildar Mukerian. He submitted report that signature and stamp of Tehsildar Mukerian is not genuine as has been verified from Sh. Amritvir Singh, Tehsildar, Mukerian. Upon issuance of a direction, the Tehsildar Mukerian appeared in the court and after going through the valuation application and identity card of Lambardar Amrik Singh, he made statement that his signature as well as stamp of the Tehsildar on the valuation letter and identity card of the Lambardar are forged and fabricated.

By submitting surety bonds, Vipin Kumar and Yashpal who were identified and attested by Amrik Singh Lambardar and Kaludin entered into criminal conspiracy to get Surinder Singh alias Sunny released from custody on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, which were produced in judicial proceedings. Thereupon, direction was issued for registration of the FIR."

4.

The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on parity with Kaludin who has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.02.2025 passed in CRM-M-52610-2024. He further prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5.

The State's counsel opposes bail.

REASONING:

6.

There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction

sentencing. Per paragraph 7 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 19.07.2024 and accordingly his custody in this FIR is approximately eight months. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the fact that coaccused has been granted bail and primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.

7.

Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. 8.

Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 9.

While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details:

1.

AADHAR number 2.

Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.

3.

Mobile number (If available) 4.

E-Mail id (If available) 10.

This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 11.

The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner 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.

12.

This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 13.

The concerned Judicial Magistrate/ Trial Court is authorized to delete, modify, or relax any of the conditions mentioned above and is competent to do so following the law. 14.

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

15.

A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 16.

Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 25.03.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.