Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh @ Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007078
CRM-M-58647-2024
242 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-58647-2024
Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
Inderjit Singh @ Ranjit Singh ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Gurjant Singh Swaich, Advocate, for the pe oner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab
assisted by ASI Harjinder Singh.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta/on Sec/ons 0217 24.09.2024 Samrala, Police District 379, 427 IPC Khanna, Punjab
1. The pe oner apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above has come up before this Court under Sec on 482 of Bhara ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking an cipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 13 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allega ons are being taken from the reply filed by the State, which reads as follows:
"3. That the brief facts of the case are that the complainant Davinder Kaur moved applica on no.417988-PGD dated 24.08.2024 before the Senior Superintendent of Police Khanna, against (1) Ranjit Singh (alias Inderjit Singh present pe oner) son of Nirmal Singh, (2) Parkash Kaur @ Parkasho wife of Nirmal Singh, (3) Kala Singh son of Netar Singh to the effect that:
(i) That Ranjit Singh (present pe oner Inderjit Singh) is the neighbor of the complainant, and the property of Ranjit Singh is adjoining the wall of the plot purchased by the complainant. Earlier, Ranjit Singh had raised a founda on up to two feet and le5 the same incomplete. When the complainant constructed her house, she dug a separate founda on and 1 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2025 22:36:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007078 CRM-M-58647-2024 constructed her wall on the said founda on to complete the construc on of her house.
(ii) That the complainant further stated that subsequently, with the inten on to cause damage to the complainant's house, the abovemen oned accused have removed the founda on adjoining the complainant's property and deliberately le5 the same vacant. As a result of this act, during rainfall, water is seeping into the complainant's house from the said plot. The removal of the said founda on has caused water to accumulate against the complainant's wall, resul ng in damage to the founda on and cracks appearing in the structure of the house.
(iii) That the complainant also alleged that the wall adjoining the property of the said accused is solely owned by the complainant and forms part of her residen al house. Prior to the construc on of the house, the complainant had purchased the said plot and, with much effort, dug a founda on 4 feet deep. A5er the complainant completed the construc on of her house, the said accused removed the founda on of their plot, extracted the bricks, and constructed a wall at the rear side of their property while deliberately leaving the founda on vacant. That such acts on the part of the accused have created a risk of the complainant's house of being collapsed."
4. The pe oner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons and contends that further pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oner and his family.
5. The State counsel has opposed the bail on the ground that the pe oner did not join the inves ga on. He refers to the reply.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following por ons of the reply, which read as follows:
"4. That the abovemen oned applica on was marked to the S.H.O. P.S Samrala. Thereupon, the S.H.O. P.S Samrala, a5er conduc ng a thorough inquiry into the ma?er through ASI Jarnail Singh, found that:
(i) That, it was found that there was a common wall between the complainant and the above-men oned accused persons. The accused persons demolished the said wall without the consent of the complainant and removed the bricks therefrom to construct their own wall on the other side. The house of the complainant, which is adjoining the plot of said the accused persons, has been affected as the accused le5 a 2 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2025 22:36:40 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007078 CRM-M-58647-2024 founda on 4 feet deep incomplete. Due to the accumula on of water in the said founda on, the alignment of the complainant's 2 inch wall has started to shi5, resul ng in the collapse of a wall in the complainant's storage room.
(ii) That further, it has been found that the wall on the side of the plot in ques on belongs solely to the complainant and forms part of her residen al house. Prior to the construc on of the house, the complainant purchased the said plot and dug a founda on 4 feet deep. A5er the complainant completed the construc on of her house, the accused removed the founda on of their plot, extracted the bricks, and constructed a wall at the rear side of their plot while deliberately leaving the founda on vacant, causing rainwater to accumulate in the same.
(iii) That from the recorded statements and spot inquiry, it has been found that the accused, in connivance with each other, removed bricks from the complainant's wall and used the same for their own founda on. The accused deliberately le5 the founda on adjacent to the complainant's wall vacant, which caused the collapse of a wall in the complainant's storage room and resulted in the misalignment of the complainant's wall.
(iv) That it was recommended in the inquiry report that Ranjit Singh alias Inderjit Singh (present Pe oner); Prakash Kaur alias Prakasho; and Kala Singh, have stolen the bricks from the complainant's wall and caused damage to the complainant's property, and thereby commi?ed offences punishable under property, Sec ons 379 and 427 of the IPC. A. ROLE OF THE PETITIONER
7. That Ranjit Singh alias Inderjit Singh (present Pe oner), in connivance with Prakash Kaur alias Prakasho and Kala Singh, removed the bricks from the wall belonging solely to the complainant and used the same for the founda on of their own plot. The pe oner with the inten on to cause wrongful loss and damage to the complainant's property, deliberately le5 the adjoining founda on vacant, which resulted in water accumula on and caused cracks and misalignment in the complainant's house. The pe oner's deliberate act led to the collapse of a wall in the complainant's storage room, thereby damaging her residen al structure."
7. Given the nature of allega ons, it is not a case for custodial interroga on or pre trial incarcera on. In case, the pe oner repeats any offence, it shall be permissible for the complainant as well as the State to file cancella on of bail before the trial Court or before the concerned Sessions Court which shall be at liberty to cancel the same.
33 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2025 22:36:40 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007078 CRM-M-58647-2024 Further in case, there is any need, it shall be permissible for the trial Court or the Sessions Court to impose or modify any condi ons.
8. Pre-trial incarcera on should not be a replica of post-convic on sentencing. The evidence might be prima facie sufficient to launch prosecu on or to frame charges, but this Court is not considering the evidence at that stage but is analyzing it for the stage of an cipatory bail. An analysis of the above does not jus fy custodial interroga on or pre- trial incarcera on.
9. Given the above, the penal provisions invoked coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allega ons and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no jus fiability for custodial interroga on or the pre-trial incarcera on at this stage.
10. Without commen ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men oned above, the pe oner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the me it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage.
11. Given above, provided the pe oner is not required in any other case, the pe oner shall be released on bail in the FIR cap oned above subject to furnishing bonds to the sa sfac on of the Arres ng Officer, and if the maFer is before a Court, then the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep ng the surety, the concerned Officer/Court must be sa sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
12. While furnishing a personal bond, the pe oner shall men on the following personal iden fica on details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the aFes ng officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
13. This order is subject to the pe oner's complying with the following terms. The pe oner shall abide by all statutory bond condi ons and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The pe oner 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.
44 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2025 22:36:40 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007078 CRM-M-58647-2024
14. The pe oner is directed to join the inves ga on 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 Inves gator. The pe oner shall be in deemed custody for Sec on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Sec on 23 of BSA, 2023. The pe oner shall join the inves ga on as and when called by the Inves ga ng Officer or any Superior Officer and shall cooperate with the inves ga on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, the prosecu on will be open to seeking cancella on of the bail. During the inves ga on, the pe oner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
15. In case the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta on arraigns another sec on of any penal offense in this FIR, and if the new sec on prescribes a maximum sentence that is not greater than the sec ons men oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec ons men oned above; then, in that case, the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe oner no ce of a minimum of seven days, providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
16. This bail is condi onal, and the founda onal condi on is that if the pe oner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an applica on for cancella on of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
17. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
18. A cer fied copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe oner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and aFest it to be a true copy. If the aFes ng officer wants to verify its authen city, such an officer can also verify its authen city and may download and use the downloaded copy for aFes ng bonds.
19. Pe//on allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
14.01.2025
Jyo/-II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 20-01-2025 22:36:40 :::