Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charnjeet Singh @ Charna And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 27 September, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132819
1
CRM-M-42184-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42184-2024
Reserved on: 12.09.2024
Pronounced on: 27.09.2024
Charanjeet Singh @ Charna and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Rhythem Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
4 09.01.2022 City-I, Abohar, 365, 342, 355, 379, 323, 147,
District Fazilka 149 IPC (Offence u/s 377 IPC
added later on)
1. The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 482 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 18 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:
"(i) Initially, the FIR in question was registered u/s 365,342,355, 379,323,147,149 IPC against five accused namely: (1) Charanjeet Singh @ Charma son of Kalu Ram (2) Madan Lal @ Manish Kumar son of Subash Chander (present petitioners) (3) Kana Ram @ Kahna Ram son of Raja Ram (4) Narinder Kumar son of Subash Chander and (5) Pardeep Sharma @ Pardeep Kumar Sharma son of Surinder Pandit @Surinder Kumar Sharma on the statement of 'V' son of Narsi Ram on the allegations that accused kidnapped the complainant 'V', beaten him and also insulted him and the accused also snatched the mobile phone and Rs.3800/- from the complainant. It was stated by the complainant that his marriage was solemnized with Rajni Sharma d/o Narinder Sharma about twelve years back. Due to strained relations between the complainant and 1 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2024 23:59:10 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132819 2 CRM-M-42184-2024 the said Rajni Sharma, the accused Pardeep Sharma used to quarrel with the complainant. On 7.12.2021, the complainant went to Abohar in connection with some work and after doing work, the complainant sat in the Bus which was to go to Barekan and the Bus was to start at 4.00PM.
Before the bus started, the accused persons came there and beaten the complainant and took him forcibly to Dharam Nagri, Abohar. The accused snatched Mobile phone and purse containing Rs.3800/- from the complainant. The accused persons illegally confined the complainant. The accused persons removed the clothes of the complainant making him naked. The accused persons also put danda in the anus of the complainant.
ii) As per MLR No.IJ/03/2022/FZK dated 04.01.2022 (Civil Hospital, Fazilka) of the complainant-injured Pawan Kumar, there is one injury
(iii). The Forensic DNA report dated 24.06.2022 was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Mohali.
(iv). During the investigation, earlier the offences u/s 365,342,355,379, 147,149 IPC had been not found to have been committed by the accused and further, the accused Manish Kumar was found innocent. So, vide DDR No.50 dated 29.01.2022 the offences u/s 365,342,355,379,147,149 IPC were deleted in the FIR in question.
(v). The complainant Pawan Kumar moved an application (No.423-PC-D2 dated 18.04.2023) to the S.S.P., Fazilka requested for conducting investigation into the matter. The said application was marked to the S.P.(Inv), Fazilka for investigation. During the investigation, the offences u/s 365,342,355, 377,323,147,149 IPC were found to have been committed by all the accused including the petitioners and the accused Manish Kumar was also found guilty. The investigation report No.64-PC-Reader- SP(Inv.) 12.07.2023 submitted by the S.P.(Inv.), Fazilka was approved by the S.S.P., Fazilka. Vide DDR No.49 dated 17.07.2023, the offences u/s 365,342,355,377,323,147,149 IPC were added in the FIR in question.
(vi). The accused disposed of the stick and vehicle used in the commission of crime, so the offence u/s 201 IPC was added in the FIR in question.
(vii). Now the FIR in question is for offences u/s 365,342,355, 377,323,147,149,201 IPC."
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.
22 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2024 23:59:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132819 3 CRM-M-42184-2024
6. It would be appropriate to refer to para 8 of order dated 25-07-2024, passed by this Court in CRM-M-31910-2024 titled as Kana Ram @ Kanha Ram and another v. State of Punjab, which read as follows:
"8. An analysis of the above said argument would lead to the following outcome. The allegations of the complainant that he was abducted on 17.12.2021 and was released on 03.01.2022, lacks corroboration from any missing person report. He was allegedly released on 03.01.2022 and he filed police complaint about abduction but did not level allegations about piercing sticks in his inner part. Subsequently the inquiry was conducted and report (Annexure P-2) was sent by Senior Superintendent of Police, Fazilka, to Deputy Commissioner, as per which, offence was only found to be committed under Section 323/341/34 IPC and Sections 365/342/355/379/147/149 IPC were deleted. Entry qua this inquiry was duly made into General Diary details (Annexure P-3). One of the co- accused Pardeep Sharma had approached this Court for anticipatory bail by filing CRM-M-54565-2023, and the said person was granted anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 and petitioners are entitled for bail on parity with Pardeep Sharma @ Pardeep Kumar Sharma also."
7. Given the above, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on parity with co-accused Kana Ram.
8. The 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 the same 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.
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.
33 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2024 23:59:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132819 4 CRM-M-42184-2024
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 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 4 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2024 23:59:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:132819 5 CRM-M-42184-2024 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 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. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 27.09.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. 5 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-10-2024 23:59:11 :::