Gurdeep Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 09.07.2025
Pronounced on: 30.07.2025 Gurdeep Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Paras Jagga, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 06.02.2025 Bhadson, District 115(2), 324(5), 325(5), Patiala 326(g) of BNS 2023 1.
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came 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 taken from the status report dated 08.07.2025 filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"That the brief facts of the case are thatFIR no. 14 dated 06.02.2025 under Section 115(2), 324(5), 325(5), 326(g) of BNS registered at Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala, on basis of statement of Parmod Kumar son of Subedar resident of MohallaLadhian, Police station Sikandra, District Kanpur, UP presently residing at Liquor Vend, Village Sudhewalwritten by ASI Gursewak Singh 1517/PTI against Gurdeep Singh son of Sadhu Singh resident of Village Mangewal, Police Station Bhadson, District Patiala wherein he stated that "I Parmod Kumar son of Subedar resident of MohallaLadhian, Police station Sikandra, District Kanpur, UP presently residing at Liquor Vend, Village Sudhewal. I work as an employee under liquor contractors of village Sudhewal. Today at about
7:30 AM, I was present at Sudhewal shop and Gurdeep Singh son of Sadhu Singh resident of Mangewal, Police Station Bhadson came as usual, who started arguing with tavern owner that I want to set fire on the theka. He took the pipe from the stove of the cylinder of the taven and started the fire by turning on the cylinder in front of the pipe and inserted the pipe inside the shop through grill and threw the card board in front of the fire. Whom I tried to stop, who did not stop, who kept on punching me and Mahendra, The fire caught so badly that liquor bottles started bursting. Regarding which I called the owner, after about an hour the fire brigade came. In the meantime, the liquor and cash inside the shop and all other things were burnt and turned into ashes. Regarding which today, I have got recorded my statement at Civil Hospital, Nabha, which is read over, heard and correct."
4.
The petitioner's counsel seeks bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and he is in custody since 06.02.2025. 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 on the ground that allegations are serious. 6.
It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"The role of the petitioner-That it is respectfully submitted that prima facie case has been made against the petitioner on basis of statement of Parmod Kumar son of Subedar resident of Mohalla Ladhian, Police station Sikandra, District Kanpur, UP presently residing at Liquor Vend, Village Sudhewal where complainant stated clearly stated that Gurdeep Singh son of Sadhu Singh resident of Mangewal, Police Station Bhadson came as usual, who started arguing with tavern owner, that I want to set fire on the theka. He took the pipe from the stove of the cylinder of the tavern and started the fire by turning on the cylinder in front of the pipe and inserted the pipe inside the shop through grill and threw the card board in front of the fire. Whom I tried to stop, who did not stop, who kept on punching me and Mahendra, The fire caught so badly that liquor bottles started bursting."
REASONING:
7.
The petitioner's action is callus that he did not think over the consequences and points not only sensitively but extreme cruelty. 8.
A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points
towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. The impact of crime would not justify bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
9.
The petitioner's custody of around 05 months & 01 days cannot be termed prolonged, given the minimum sentence prescribed for the offense. 10.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 11.
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 30.07.2025 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.