Punjab-Haryana High Court
Zora Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 September, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-20608-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20608-2024
Reserved on: 16.09.2024
Pronounced on: 27.09.2024
Zora Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
27 10.03.2024 Machhiwara, 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC
District Ludhiana
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 16 of the bail petition, 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:
"(i) That on 09.03.2024, wife of his cousin Mangal Singh namely Jasveer Kaur consumed the wrong medicine and was admitted at Medicity Hospital, Machhiwara. At 7:30 PM, when he alongwith Mangal Singh, Sukhchain Singh sons of Gulshan Singh and Gulshan Singh, was present at said hospital to know about well being of Jasveer Kaur, at that time, father-in-law of Mangal Singh namely Gurdeep Singh armed with kirpan, his brother-in-
law Gurpreet Singh armed with small kirpan, his mother-in-law Kuldeep Kaur, maternal uncle Manjit Singh and Zora Singh (present Petitioner) who were empty-handed came at the hospital. That Gurpreet Singh gave the blow of small kirpan on the right side of the chest of Sukhchain Singh. Gurpreet Singh gave blow of small kirpan on Gulshan Singh on his right buttock. Then, Gurdeep Singh gave blow of kirpan to Gulshan Singh on his stomach and right thigh. Gurpreet Singh gave blow of kirpan on left elbow of complainant. Kuldeep Kaur caught hold Gulshan Singh from his hairs and Ranjit Singh and Zora Singh gave fist Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.07 10:41 blows to him. The injured persons raised hue and cry on which I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-20608-2024 people gathered at the spot and police also came at the spot. The people at the spot caught hold of Gurdeep Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Manjit Singh and they were arrested at the spot on 10-03-2024."
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 status report.
6. The petitioner was empty-handed, used no weapon, and is attributed fist blows. Thus, his role is much lower than the other accused.
7. The Police did not arrest the petitioner; if they intended to arrest the petitioner, it was not impossible. A perusal of the status report does not point out the steps taken to arrest the accused.
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 bail stage.
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 Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.07 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-20608-2024 considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.07 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-20608-2024 instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
17. 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."
18. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
19. 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.
20. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. Interim order dated 26.04.2024 is made absolute. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 27.09.2024 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. Jyoti Sharma 2024.10.07 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4