Baldev Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.07.2025 BALDEV SINGH ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Manbir Singh Basra, Advocate and Mr. Anupinder Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Navreet Kaur Barnala, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 20.06.2025 Shri Hargobindpur, 115(2)/118(1)/3(5) of BNS (Offence District Gurdaspur under Section 117(2)/118(2) of BNS added later on) 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 14 of the bail petition, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. 3.

The facts and allegations are being taken from the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, which reads as follows: "3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the present FIR under Section 115(2), 118(1), 3(5) of BNS was registered on the statement of complainant Baljit Singh son of Makhan Singh recorded on 20.06.2025 with ASI Sakattar Singh, wherein he alleged that he is an agriculturist. On 13.06.2025 at about 5.30 AM, he along with his uncle's son Sikandar Singh went to his fields for watering his fields. Baldev Singh son of Wassan Singh and Hardev Singh son of Harbans Singh were digging holes in their fields near their motor. When he started watering his fields by starting motor, Hardev Singh armed with dattar and Baldev Singh came to them with empty hands abusing them and Baldev singh raised lalkara to catch hold them and teach a lesson for forcibly watering from their motor, upon which Hardev Singh gave dattar blow, which hit on his left leg below the knee, then Baldev Singh

-2punched him twice with his right hand, which hit on his left eye. He fell down on the ground. While he was lying on the ground, Hardev Singh gave dattar blow, which hit on his back below the spine, then Baldev Singh punched him again, which hit on his upper lip. Sikander Singh raised raula and assailants ran away from the spot with their weapons. Sikandar Singh arranged the vehicle and got him admitted in Civil Hospital Qadian, where he was medico legally examined. Offence under Sections 117(2) and 118 (2) has been added on receiving X- ray report vide DDR No. 21 dated 01.07.2025." 4.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of version and cross-version. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he himself received injury in the occurrence. He further prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions including surrender of fire arms, if any, and the petitioner would stay away from the property/work place, residence of the victim and he will not pressurize, induce, threaten the victim or his family members. In case, he repeats the offence or commit any offence where the sentence is more than 07 years, he would have no objection, if State files an application for cancellation of his bail. He further contends that pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. 5.

The State's counsel opposes bail on instructions. 6.

Counsel for the complainant opposes the bail and submits that in case, petitioner repeats the offence or enter his property or work place, he be granted liberty to file cancellation of bail of petition in this case before the trial Court. REASONING:

7.

It is not a case of use of any weapon except the rupture of eye and victim was also hospitalized for 3-4 days. 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 pre-trial incarceration.

8.

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, subject to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order. 9.

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. CONDITIONS:

10.

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

-3satisfaction 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.

11.

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) 12.

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

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.

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.

15.

Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect 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 firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a 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

-4petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under 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.

16.

The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform 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."

17.

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.

18.

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. 19.

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. Further, if petitioner violates any of the condition, in that case, complainant is at liberty to file cancellation of bail before trial Court, who shall be competent and authorize to cancel petitioner's bail.

20.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 21.

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

-5web 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.

22.

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

16.07.2025 (ANOOP CHITKARA) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No