Rashpal Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION :- 07.08.2024 Rashpal Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.

*** SUMEET GOEL , J.

(Oral) The instant petition has been filed on 30.07.2024 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, 1973 for grant of regular bail. As per the judgment rendered by this Court titled 'Abhishek Jain Versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and another' (CRM-M-31808 of 2024) 2024PHHC085784, the instant petition is not maintainable under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, 1973. However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case especially that the instant petition pertains to regular bail, the instant petition is directed to be considered as a petition under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.

1.

Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.214 dated 20.10.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363,366-A IPC (Section 376 IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act 2012 added later on) at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar.

2.

The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- "Statement of Atma Singh son of Amrik Singh resident of Raipur Kalan, police station Ajnala District Amritsar aged around 40 years, mobile no. 8427926710 made a statement that I am resident of above said address and I do the labour work. I have three children two daughters and one son. Elder daughter is Muskanpreet Kaur who is around 17 years of age younger to her is son Jashanpreet Singh and youngest daughter if Khushpreet Kaur. My daughter Muskanpreet Kaur who has studied upto 8th class and she do the household work. On 19.10.2023 our entire family was sleeping in the house at around 11.

30 PM, I got up from my bed and saw that my daughter Muskanpreet Kaur was on her bed, regarding which I have told to my daughter Kulwant Kaur then my wife Kulwant Kaur looked for our daughter Muskanpreet Kaur here and there but we could not find her, we have also enquired from our relatives but we did not get any clue. Then I came to know that my daughter my daughter Muskanpreet Kaur has been enticed by Rashpal Singh son of Manjit Singh, resident of Sheikh Bhatti police station Ajnala on the pretext of performing marriage has taken her somewhere. Rashpal Singh who use to keep bad eye on my daughter is already a married person. Today, myself Jaswant Singh son of Rulda Singh, resident of Raipur Kalan was going to give information, I have met you, I am complainant.

My daughter Muskanpreet Kaur may be searched and against Rashpal Singh son of Manjit Singh resident of Sheikh Bhatti legal action may be initiated. I have made the statement, it is correct. RTI Atma Singh above said attested by Kamalpreet Kaur L/SI Police Station Ajnala dated 20.10.2023."

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 22.10.2023. Learned counsel has further argued that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that prime prosecution witnesses namely the victim and father of the victim/complainant, when examined as prosecution witnesses (PW1 & PW2 respectively) have not supported the case of the prosecution and hence the trial is not likely to culminate into conviction. In this view of the matter, learned counsel has prayed for grant of regular bail.

4.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised are serious in nature and thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 06.08.2024 in Court, which is taken on record.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the available records of the case.

6.

The petitioner was arrested on 22.10.2023 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 18.12.2023. Total 14 prosecution witnesses have been cited and culmination of trial, but of course, will take its own time. The rival contention of learned counsel for the parties; as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question and the weightage required to be attached to the testimony of the hostile witnesses namely PW1 (victim) as also PW2 (father of the victim/complainant) shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court does not deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per

custody certificate dated 06.08.2024 filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of 09 months and 15 days & is not shown to be involved in any other case. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cell-phone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station and shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

8.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the

State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

9.

Ordered accordingly.

10.

Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

11.

Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 07.08.2024 P.Singh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No