Gian v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-48931-2024 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.48931 of 2024

Reserved on: 12.11.2024

Pronounced on: 28.11.2024 Gian

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate and Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 05.03.2024 Kabirpur, District 302, 34 IPC (later on offence Kapurthala u/s 120-B, 148, 149 IPC added and 34 IPC deleted) 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 14 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:

"3.

That the record reveals that the allegations of the prosecution are that complainant/Jugraj Singh suffered a statement that on 04.03.2024 at about 8:00 p.m. his younger brother Balvir Singh received telephonic call from Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha and Balvir Singh went to meet Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha but did not return. They started searching for Balvir Singh during the course of which they found Baivir Singh smeared in blood was lying near the motor room in his fields. On checking, he was found dead and his body was cold. There were sharp deep injuries on his head and neck part. On the basis of statement of complainant, present FIR was registered and investigation was

CRM-M-48931-2024 -2initiated during the course of which accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha was arrested."

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:

"ROLE OF PETITIONER That as per prosecution case, on the basis of disclosure statement made by co accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, the name of the petitioner has been nominated as an additional accused. Since the intentional/planned murder of the deceased was the MOTIVE of the petitioner and his associates. The petitioner raised lalkara and encouraged the other accused to murder the Balvir Singh. So, at this stage the allegations as emerged during investigation are grave regarding the murder of Balvir Singh. As per record the petitioner has inflicted multiple injuries on the neck of the Balbir Singh, with the knife. The coaccused/Sandeep Singh @ Seepa has also confessed and disclosed the presence as well as participation of the petitioner in the commission of murder of Balbir Singh in his disclosure statement dated 11-03-2024.

EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER  That as per record, un-rebutted allegations of the murder of Balvir Singh are available in the police record and the co-accused/Sandeep Singh @ Seepa has also ensured the presence as well as participation of the petitioner in the commission of murder of Balbir Singh in his disclosure statement dated 1103-2024, de-spite the disclosure statement of co-accused Lakhwinder Singh. Another evidence against the petitioner is that he raised lalkara and encouraged the other accused to murder the said Balvir Singh.  That after registration of FIR, accused Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, was arrested on 05.03.2024 and was produced before the court of SDJM/ Sultanpur Lodhi. The The Ld. SDJM ordered for the police remand of the accused for further investigation.

During the course of further investigation, the said accused got recovered the weapon/Takua, by which he inflicted deep sharp injuries on the head of the Balbir Singh as well as the blood smeared shirt and mobile phone of the deceased." 7.

Regarding the petitioner's claim of alibi, as mentioned in para 7 of the bail petition, there is no explanation that if the petitioner was not present there, then where was he present to enable the police to verify the truthfulness of such stand. 8.

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points

CRM-M-48931-2024 -3towards 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 07 months and 26 days cannot be termed prolonged, given the sentence prescribed for the offense, which is imprisonment for life. 10.

The petitioner is aged 71, and the petitioner is not entitled to bail even on age. 11.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 12.

Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 28.11.2024 Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.