Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilpreet Singh Alias Golu vs State Of Punjab on 18 September, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123478
CRM-M-27580-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-27580-2024
Reserved on: 05.09.2024
Pronounced on: 18.09.2024
Dilpreet Singh @ Golu ...Pe oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate,
for the pe oner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 27 13.02.2022 Division No.3, 307, 323, 341, 148, 149, 120-B, 506 IPC District Ludhiana
1. The pe oner incarcerated in the FIR cap oned above had come up before this Court under Sec on 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail.
2. In paragraph 9 of the bail applica on and as per para 6 of the status report, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:
Sr. No. FIR No. Dated Offenses Police Sta1on 1. 119 29.08.2021 279, 338, 304 (2) IPC Sadar Jagraon 2. 193 03.10.2022 307, 160, 506, 148, 149 IPC and City Jagraon, Sec ons 25/27/54/59 of Arms Ludhiana Act 3. 19 30.01.2023 379-B IPC Sadar Jagraon 4. 24 15.02.2023 379-B, 323 IPC Sadar Jagraon 5. 59 16.04.2023 379-B, 201 IPC Sadar Jagraon 6. 157 28.07.2019 61 of Excise Act City Jagraon 7. 04 06.01.2022 61/78(2)/1/14 of Excise Act Sadar Jagraon 8. 55 17.03.2023 307, 323, 324, 473, 120-B IPC Sadar Jagraon 9. 27 13.02.2023 307, 323, 34, 148, 149, 506, Division No.3, 120-B IPC Ludhiana 10. 128 07.06.2023 25(6), 25(7), 25(8), 54, 59 of City Moga Arms Act
3. The facts and allega ons are being taken from the status report filed by the State, which reads as follows:
11 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 15:38:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123478 CRM-M-27580-2024 "3. That the brief factual matrix pertaining to the present case are as follows:
i. That on the statement provided by Rajesh Kumar, (hereina"er referred to as "the complainant") the present case i.e. FIR No.27 dated 13/02/2022, was registered under Sec.ons 307, 323, 341, 148, 149, 120- B, and 506 of the IPC at PS Division No.3, Ludhiana wherein 5-6 uniden.fied individuals were involved as accused.
ii. That in the detailed statement provided by the complainant, Rajesh Kumar, pertaining to the incident dated 11/02/2022, it was alleged that while he was returning from the Municipal Corpora.on, Ludhiana, Zone -A Office at approximately 01:00 PM, a group of 6-7 uniden.fied individuals on two Ac.vas intercepted him near Rupa Mistry Gali. The assailants (on one of the aforesaid Ac.va) encircled the complainant, and one of them struck him on the back with a wooden s.ck (danda), causing him to fall. Subsequently, another aCacker assaulted the complainant with a Kirpan/Datar. The complainant raised an alarm, aCrac.ng the aCen.on of onlookers, promp.ng the assailants to flee the scene while issuing threats to the complainant. Following the incident, the complainant was taken to CMC Hospital for medical treatment. The mo.ve behind this alleged aCack, as per the complainant's statement, is rooted in a prior case (bearing no. 1/2005) related to illegal construc.ons and possessions carried out by the complainant's neighbor, Rajesh Mehta, in collusion with Municipal Corpora.on officials. The complainant, being a witness in the said case, highlighted that some individuals were convicted, while others were acquiCed by the Learned Trial Court. The prosecu.on, dissa.sfied with the acquiCals, filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, designa.ng the complainant as a whistleblower in the maCer. Addi.onally, the complainant stated that he had sought various other Right to Informa.on (RTI) disclosures, which aimed to expose financial irregulari.es and losses to the Government exchequer. The complainant asserts that corrupt individuals, with the assistance of others, orchestrated the aCack with the explicit intent to eliminate him due to his role in unveiling malprac.ces and corrup.on."
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 their family.
22 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 15:38:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123478 CRM-M-27580-2024
5. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following por ons of the status report, which read as follows:
"5. That from the aforesaid facts, the role of the pe..oner and the evidence against the pe..oner in the present are outlined as follows:
Role of the Pe oner:
During the course of the inves.ga.on, it has been revealed that the pe..oner, along with the other nominated accused, was involved in the aCack on the complainant that occurred on 11/02/2022. The statements obtained during the inves.ga.on point towards the involvement of the pe..oner and the other accused in the assault against the complainant.
Evidence against the pe oner:
The pe..oner Dilpreet Singh @ Golu, was specifically named in the disclosure made by the accused namely Gulshan Kumar @ Sheru during his ques.oning. In his disclosure, Gulshan Kumar @ Sheru explicitly men.oned that the pe..oner was among the assailants who had aCacked the complainant. This statement directly implicates the pe..oner as a par.cipant in the criminal act, providing crucial evidence of his involvement."
7. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connec ng the pe oner with the alleged crime. However, as per custody cer ficate dated 16.09.2024, the pe oner's total custody in this FIR is 1 year, 2 months and 14 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, 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 further pre-trial incarcera on at this stage.
8. 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.
9. 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 concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accep ng the surety, the concerned 3 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 15:38:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123478 CRM-M-27580-2024 Court must be sa sfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
10. 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 aHes ng 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 pe oner's complying with the following terms.
12. 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.
13. Given the nature of the allega ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe oner shall not enter the vic m's property, workplace, and residence un l the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial are recorded. This Court is imposing this condi on to rule out any aHempt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic m. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves ga on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.) 458); and Aparna BhaH v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.
14. Given the background of allega ons against the pe oner, it becomes paramount to protect the vic m, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacita ng the accused would be one of the primary op ons un l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquiHal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restric on 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 sanc on]. Given the nature of the allega ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe oner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammuni on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fiNeen days from release from prison and inform the Inves gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe oner shall be en tled to renew and take it back in case 4 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 15:38:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:123478 CRM-M-27580-2024 of acquiHal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restric ng firearms would ins ll confidence in the vic m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea ng the offense.
15. The condi ons men oned 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 Pe on (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 condi ons imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be propor onal to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail condi ons must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, condi ons that would result in the depriva on of rights and liber es must be eschewed."
16. 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.
17. 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 aHest it to be a true copy. If the aHes 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 aHes ng bonds.
18. Pe11on allowed in terms men oned above. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
18.09.2024
Jyo1-II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
5
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 21-09-2024 15:38:13 :::