Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-50844-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50844-2024
Date of Decision: 18.03.2025
Narinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate and
Mr. Sahaj Punj, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
34 12.03.2023 Shri Hargobindpur, 304-A, 279, 427 IPC (Section
District Gurdaspur 302, 506, 148, 149 IPC added
subsequently)
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 36 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from translated version of FIR, which reads as follows:
"Statement of Lovejit Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh resident of Bharath aged about 27 years, Mobile No. 89868-62076. Stated that am resident of above-mentioned address and doing household work. My husband Balwinder Singh is working as a waiter in Palaces. On 11.03.2023, after doing his work, he came home around 6:30 pm and immediately after reaching, he told me that he is not feeling well and therefore need to go to Bus Stand Dhariwal Sehia for taking medicine I asked him to get medicine from a doctor of the village, but despite my offer, he did not agree and forcibly started moving Jyoti Sharma motorcycle out. I told him that I would not send him alone at this 2025.03.25 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 1 CRM-M-50844-2024 moment. Therefore, I and my 8 years daughter Mahipreet Kaur sat behind him on the motorcycle as pillion riders. When we reached near Village Lalla and were about one killa behind Sua bridge, one bolero type vehicle came from front side at a high speed. Its lights were blowing at high beam. While driving the said vehicle in a negligent manner, its driver hit our motorcycle. As a result of which, face of my husband struck with the vehicle from right side and he fell down from the motorcycle and then fell in wheat crop field. My husband received a grievous injury on the right-side face of my husband, while I received only minor injury and a scratch on little finger of left foot. I called the ambulance and took my husband for treatment to CHC where the doctor declared my husband Balwinder Singh as dead. Accident took place around 7:00 pm. My husband Balwinder Singh died after he was hit by unknown driver of Bolero vehicle which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which my husband fell down from motorcycle whereby my husband received grievous injury on right side of his face. I was going to inform you, when you met me on the way. Legal action may be taken."
4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that 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. SIT was constituted to investigate the matter and SIT added offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, 506 IPC vide DDR No.12 dated 23.05.2024. Further another SIT was constituted by DIG Border Range headed by Senior Superintendent of Police and in the further investigation, SIT recommended deletion of offence under Sections 302, 506, 148, 149 IPC. Later on, another additional affidavit dated 03.03.2025 by DySP in which detail of further investigation was given in para no.8 of said affidavit which reads as follows:
"8. That during the investigation, the SIT procured the location data of Kashmir Singh's mobile number (98154-56616), which established that on 11.03.2023, at 07:00 PM, he was present in Village Bharath, i.e. approximately 1.5 to 2 kilometers away from the place of occurrence. Additionally, the location data of the accused persons i.e:
Narinder Singh, Rupinder Singh, Sarabjit Singh, Kulwinder Singh @ Fauji, was verified, and none of them were found to be present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Based on this discrepancy between Kashmir 2 Singh's location and his statement, the SIT disbelieved his account as an eyewitness, as it was conclusively established 2392/that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the alleged time. It is pertinent to mention that Kashmir Singh had a pre- existing dispute with Narinder Singh (petitioner) concerning the Sarpanch elections, which cast further doubt on his credibility.
13. That in light of the findings of the SIT, no incriminating evidence Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.25 15:44 was found against the initially nominated accused persons, namely I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 2 CRM-M-50844-2024 Narinder Singh (Petitioner), Rupinder Singh, Sarabjot Singh, and Kulwinder Singh @ Daisy. Consequently, the SIT recommended that they be declared innocent. Furthermore, since the investigation did not support the allegations of murder, the SIT recommended the deletion of Sections 302, 506, 148 and 149 of the IPC. Instead, in view of the evidence gathered, the SIT recommended the addition of Sections 304-A, 279, and 427 IPC, in the present FIR."
7. Since the SIT has not found involvement of petitioner and deleted the offence under Section 302 IPC, as such he is entitled for bail. Given the above, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction sentencing.
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. 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.
9. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory 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.
10. 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)
11. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
12. 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 Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.25 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-50844-2024 the investigation, the petitioner shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
13. 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.
14. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
15. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
16. 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.
17. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 18.03.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No. Jyoti Sharma 2025.03.25 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4