Amit Gill v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 03.07.2025 Amit Gill

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. A.S. Khosa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 24.04.2025 Makhu, Ferozepur 132/221/115(2)/191(3)/190 of BNS 1.

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

In paragraph 11 of the bail petition and 5(I) of the status report filed by the State, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3.

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

"4.

That the brief facts of the case are that FIR no.44 dated 24.04.2025 u/s 132,221,115(2), 191(3), 190 of BNS 2023, Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur was registered on the statement of Nirmal Singh son of Banai Singh against 1)Amit Gill (present petitioner), 2)Sumit son of Darshan, 3)Abhi son of Vijay and two unknown persons, on the allegations that the complainant is working as Assistant Grade-I in Food Corporation of India and during discharge of his duty, a truck bearing registration No.PB-03-T5877, came to the Weighing Scale/Kanda for weighment of crop. The present petitioner along with other co-accused namely Sumit alighted from the truck, whereas the third person namely Abhi remained seated in the truck. The complainant along with other employees asked co-accused Abhi to alight from the truck, so that the crop could be weighed and

complainant along with other officers are able to perform their duty. Abhi, instead of alighting from the truck, picked up fight, which led to the confrontation between the parties. The present petitioner gave a fist blow on the eyebrow of complainant Nirmal Singh and is the first person to initiate fight. Thus the present petitioner and his co-accused have created obstruction in discharge of official duties of public servant."

4.

The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that 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 status report. 6.

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

"5(H). The role of the petitioner So far as the role of petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is attributed a fist blow on the right eyebrow of Nirmal Singh, which become the inception point of the entire assault and the complainant, who is public servant, has been obstructed from discharge of his official duties."

7.

Allegations against the petitioner are that he has obstructed the complainant from discharging his official duties. This Court wants to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to course correct.

8.

Pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecution or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of anticipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not justify custodial interrogation or pretrial incarceration. 9.

Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for custodial interrogation or the pre-trial incarceration at this stage.

10.

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.

11.

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 Arresting Officer, and if the matter is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 12.

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) 13.

The petitioner is directed to join the investigation 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 Investigator. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 23 of BSA, 2023. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecution will be open to seeking cancellation of the bail. During the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.

14.

In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above; then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the petitioner notice of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 15.

It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do so. 16.

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 have the liberty to cancel this bail.

17.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 18.

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. 19.

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

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 03.07.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:

No.