On January 10, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while considering the material on record, the gravity of the offence, prima facie involvement, and complicity of the petitioners in the brutal murder of the son of the complainant, their criminal antecedents, the likelihood of again threatening, winning over the witnesses, tampering again with the evidence, observed that the apprehension of justice was thwarted by a grant of bail to the petitioners because of an unholy political nexus having the highest echelons of power.
Brief Facts:
A petition was filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for a grant of regular bail to the petitioners in a case FIR registered u/s 302,148, 149, 120-B I.P.C.
Gurjant Singh’s, paddy was not auctioned, so, he with his servant and son-in-law put Tarpaulin on the heap of paddy and left their Farm House Behak. His son was driving his Motor Platina and his servant Swaran Singh was sitting on its pillion and he was sitting on the pillion of Satnam Singh and his brother-in-law's son. They started from Grain Market Sarhali to their Farm House on the Pacca road. His son and servant were ahead of them whereas he and Satnam Singh were following them and when they were 200 yards short of G.T. Road, at about 7.00 P.M., they saw in the light of the motorcycle that petitioner, Balbir Singh armed with a rifle, Jarmanjeet Singh armed with Kirpan, Stalanjit Singh armed with Datar, Uday Singh armed with Datar, Gurdev Singh armed with Datar, Gurucharan Singh armed with Datar, Chamkaur Singh armed with Kirpan and Sukhraj Singh armed with Datar along with 7/8 persons armed with Datars and Kirpans standing on the road. On seeing his son on the Motorcycle, Balbir Singh raised a Lalkara saying to catch him and teach Gurjant Singh a lesson for picking up a quarrel with them. On hearing Lalkara, Jarmanjeet Singh, Stalanjit Singh, petitioner- Uday Singh, Gurdev Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Chamkaur Singh, Sukhraj Singh, and unidentified persons started causing injuries to his son indiscriminately.On seeing this, he along with his brother-in-law's son Satnam Singh stepped back out of fear and cried loudly “killed, killed” on which all the above assailants ran away towards Harike on the GT road via Canal minor Bridge Khara in a car and motorcycles which were parked near the GT road with their respective weapons. He along with his brother-in-law's son Satnam Singh stepped ahead and saw his servant Swaran Singh falling on the road and his son Gurjant Singh was lying fatally injured. His son Gurjant Singh died on the spot. His employee Swaran Singh also suffered extensive injuries. Then he informed the police regarding this incident and an FIR was registered against the accused.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the appellants submitted that they were falsely implicated in the present case and during g the course of the investigation, Balbir Singh along with other co-accused persons, was declared innocent in an inquiry conducted by IGP on the basis of a polygraph test which was carried out at Delhi. Moreover, no specific injury was attributed to Balbir Singh and he was facing a de novo trial which was impermissible in the eyes of law.
The counsel for Chamkaur Singh and Uday Singh submitted that their bother was also falsely implicated, and no specific role and injury was attributed to them. Although the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders, they surrendered before the trial court on 10.8.2018 and were in custody since then. Moreover, the trial was not likely to conclude in near future and no useful purpose was served by keeping the petitioners behind the bar. The judgments of the cases, Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India and others, and Hussain and another v. Union of India were referred.
The counsel for Amit Arora submitted that the Mens Rea was missing in the present case and no offence under Section 302 of the IPC was made out against the petitioner. Hence, a concession for regular bail was prayed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the state submitted that the antecedents of the accused persons were not good and they were declared proclaimed offenders by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Tarn Taran on 19.1.2015. moreover, during the course of investigation, offence under Section 201 of the IPC i.e., for causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen the offender were added. The counsel further submitted that the specific roles were attributed to the petitioners and all of them were hand in glove in committing a brutal murder of the son of the complainant. Hence, a grant of the regular bail was opposed.
The counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused were very influential persons and if they were granted bail, the life and liberty of the complainant and his family members along with the witnesses was at stake, as earlier, the witnesses were made to turn hostile due to the threat and pressure. Moreover, merely because the petitioners underwent a certain period of incarceration and the trial was not likely to be concluded in near future, were not the grounds to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court while observing the material on record, gravity of the offence, prima facie involvement and complicity of the petitioners in brutal murder of the son of the complainant, their criminal antecedents, likelihood of again threatening, winning over the witnesses, tampering again with the evidence, apprehension of justice being thwarted by grant of bail to the petitioners because of unholy political nexus having the highest echelons of power, the court did not find a trigger point warranting any interference to grant a concession of the regular bail to the petitioners.
The court further observed that the antecedents of the petitioners were also not good and the accused persons had already won over the witnesses which resulted into acquittal of the co-accused. Moreover, they were also alleged to have attacked the family members of eye-witness Satnam Singh and in this regard FIR No.57 dated 21.5.2018 under Sections 452, 336, 427, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC was register.
The judgments of the cases, Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP and another, Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, and Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and another, were relied upon by the court.
The Decision of the Court:
The petitions were dismissed and a concession of the regular bail was denied by the court.
Case Title: Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Sukhraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Chamkaur Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and Uday Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Ashok Kumar Verma
Case No.- CRM-M-47777-2019 (O&M), CRM-M-10057-2020 (O&M), CRM-M-53966-2021 (O&M), and CRM-M-52739-2021 (O&M)
Advocate for Petitioners: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Mr. M.L. Saggar, Ms. Shubhreet Saron, Mr. Armaan Saggar, and Mr. Amit Arora
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru
Read Judgement
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments