Punjab-Haryana High Court

Palwinder Singh Alias Pappi vs State Of Punjab on 19 February, 2025

Author:
Anoop Chitkara

Bench:
Anoop Chitkara

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024372
CRM-M-51511-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-51511-2024 (O&M)
Reserved on: 14.02.2025
Date of Pronouncement: 19.02.2025
Palwinder Singh alias Pappi
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent (s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:- Ms. Dolli Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

***

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
149 7.12.2023 Raja Sansi, 307, 341, 427, 506, 34
IPC
and 25 Arms Act

District Amritsar (
Sections 323
&
IPC added and
Section 25-

54-59
Arms Act deleted, later on)

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, had come up before this
Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking
regular bail.

2. In paragraph 9 of the bail application and the reply/custody certificate, the
accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
1. 41 2015 406, 498A
IPC
Jhabal, District Tarn Taran
2. 111 2023 21, 29
NDPS Act
Rama Mandi, District Jalandhar
3. 53 2022 323, 324, 325, 341, Lopoke, District Amrtisar
427, 506, 295, 148
and 149
IPC

4. 24 1.2.22 323, 324, 452, 506
IPC
Division no.8, Jalandhar City
and 25 Arms Act

3. The facts and allegations are being extracted from the reply filed by the State,
which reads as follows:

"3. That it is submitted that as per the report furnished by Station House
Officer (SHO), Police Station, (P.S.) Rajasansi, Amritsar (Rural), the aforesaid
FIR No. 149 dated 07.12.2023 (supra), was registered on the basis of
1 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2025 05:34:20 :::

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024372
CRM-M-51511-2024

statement of the Complainant Sukhwant Singh, wherein it was alleged that
he serves in Rimple Wine Group, circle Ajnala, Amritsar. On 27.11.2023 at
about 09:15 PM, he and his colleague Karanpreet Singh by riding on firm's
vehicle Bolero Camper bearing No. PB02-DZ-69831, which was being driven
by him, were going to village Kohali, PS Lopoke for supply of liquor. At that
time, Palwinder Singh @ Pappi (present petitioner) and Palwinder Singh @
Pinder S/o Billa Singh, who were in an inebriated condition came to them
and asked them why they had parked their vehicle there and started
abusing them. They (complainant) were going back to Rajasansi on their
vehicle via village Bhittewad then they (petitioner) chased them in one car
and came after them at village Bhittewad. At the time of entering village
Bhittewad, they (petitioner) brought their car in front of their (complainant)
Bolero camper and stopped it forcibly. They (complainant) alighted from
their vehicle and ran away in fear and on the way they (complainant)
informed his cousin Akashdeep Singh over phone that they complainant)
had altercation with the above said persons (petitioner) who were chasing
them to attack them. In the meantime, Akashdeep Singh also came there.
The above said persons caused him injuries and vandalized their
(complainant) vehicle and fired straight fires with an intention to kill them
(complainant). Thereafter they (complainant. can away from the spot in
fear and saved their lives. The respectable persons of village Bhittewad and
village Kohali tried to make compromise between them, which could not be
arrived at. Therefore, the instant FIR No. 149 dated 7.12.2023, under

Section 307
/
/
/
/
IPC, 25
Arms Act
, Police Station Rajasansi,
Amritsar Rural was registered."

3. 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. She further submits that the main accused Palwinder Singh
@ Pinder has already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated
6.3.2024 passed by this Court in CRM-M-1276-2024 and the petitioner is not only
entitled for same benefit on parity, but his case is on better footing.

4. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply.

5. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which
read as follows:

"10. That it is submitted that at the time of commission of crime, the present
petitioner Palwinder Singh @ Pappi was armed with baseball and he vandalized
Bolero Camper of the complainant and caused injuries to the injured
Akashdeep Singh with his baseball. The co- accused Palwinder Singh @ Pinder
with common intention of both of them had fired gunshots from DBBL gun at
the complainant party with an intention to kill them. However, they remained
unhurt."

6. There is sufficient prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner with the
alleged crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-
conviction sentencing.
2 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2025 05:34:21 :::

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024372
CRM-M-51511-2024

7. Per paragraph 11 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since
7.12.2023. Per the custody certificate dated 17.01.2025, the petitioner's total custody
in this FIR is 1 year, 1 month and 2 days.

8. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the
prima facie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this
case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage, subject
to the compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in this order.

9. Admittedly, co-accused of the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory
bail.

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. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's
official webpage.

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 concerned Court and due to unavailability before any
nearest Illaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned
Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the
accused.

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. 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. 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
3 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2025 05:34:21 :::

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024372
CRM-M-51511-2024

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.

15. 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 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.

16. 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."

17. It is clarified that if the petitioner violates any bail condition, the State and/or
the victim may file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall
be competent to cancel the bail or add more conditions. Furthermore, if the petitioner
moves for deletion or dilution of any bail conditions, the trial court is empowered to do
so.
4 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2025 05:34:21 :::

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:024372
CRM-M-51511-2024

18. 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 have the liberty to
cancel this bail.

19. The concerned trial court is authorized to delete, modify, or relax any of the
above conditions and shall be competent to do so in accordance with the law.

20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

21. 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.

22. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
February 19, 2025
AK

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
5 of 5

::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2025 05:34:21 :::