Gurpreet Singh Alias Gopi v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.30351 of 2024

Reserved on: 08.08.2024

Pronounced on: 30.08.2024 Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 18.03.2022 Canal Colony 307, 323, 341, 148, 149, 324 Bathinda, District IPC 1860 (325 IPC added later Bathinda on) 1.

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail. 2.

In paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.

3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:

"(i). The FIR in question was registered against six accused by name (1) Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi son of Jagdev Singh (present petitioner) (2) Hunny @ Kekra son of Pawan Kumar (3) Manpreet Singh @ Bawa son of Jagdev Singh (4) Kakri (5) Happy (6) Akash son of Redy and unknown person, on the statement of Vijay Kumar son of Ram Shatar, on the allegations that the accused attempted to kill Ravi Kumar (brother of the complainant Vijay Kumar). It was stated by the complainant that he is working on the shop near Dr. Mela Ram, Bathinda. On 18.03.2022, the brother of the complainant was waiting for his friend while sitting on the motor cycle near Park, Janta Nagar, Bathinda. The complainant was also going towards Ravi Kumar on foot. In the meantime, the accused persons armed with weapons, came there and attemped to kill the said Ravi Kumar by causing injuries to him. When the complainant tried to save his

-2brother, the accused persons also caused injuries to him. He raised a hue and cry at which the people gathered there. On seeing them, the accused persons ran away from the spot with their respective weapons." 4.

The petitioner's counsel 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 and refers to the reply. 6.

It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:

"4. Role of the petitioner - The petitioner and co-accused caused as many as six injuries (including three grievous injuries) to the victim Ravi Kumar with intention to kill him. The injury No.2 caused with gandasa, which is grievous, is attributed to the petitioner accused. The petitioner actively participated in the commission of crime. The complainant Vijay Kumar is also one of the eye witnesses. The gandasa used in the commission of crime, was recovered from the petitioneraccused." 7.

There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime. However, per paragraph 3(iv) of the reply to the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 31-01-2024. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, absence of criminal antecedents, coupled with the 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. 8.

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. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.

9.

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.

10.

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

1.

AADHAR number

-32.

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) 11.

This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms. 12.

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.

13.

Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall not enter the property, workplace, and residence of the victim until the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condition to rule out any attempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the victim. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230. 14.

Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction 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 sanction].

Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.

15.

The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to

-4reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (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 conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed." 16.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17.

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. 18.

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

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 30.08.2024 Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.