Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 933

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Baljinder Singh Alias Aman - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Punjab & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2629 of 2025 (@SLP(Crl.) No. 1427 Of 2025) And Criminal Appeal No(s). 2630 of 2025 (@SLP(Crl.) No. 1743 Of 2025)
Decided On : 16-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Dev Datt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv., Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv., Mr. VPS Mithewal, Adv., Mr. Shivam Garg, Adv., Ms. Varsha Sharma, Adv., Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv., Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv., Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Adv., Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv., Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Adv., Mr. Sarfaraj Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR, Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv., Mr. Aman Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR, Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR, Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv., Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv., Mr. Harsh Wadhwani, Adv., Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Sr. Adv., Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv., Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv., Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv., Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv., Ms. Mehak Sharma, Adv., Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR, Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail - Order granting bail cannot be reversed by High Court by a cryptic order.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Bail - Appeal for cancellation - Respondent-accused (s) have been alleged to have committed offence under Section 302 of IPC - It may be a fact that respondent-accused(s) may have carried injured victim, who later died, to Hospital but he was actually brought dead to hospital - This fact will have to be considered de hors from the fact as to who actually had committed the offence in first place in instant case - Trial court has rightly noted said aspect and declined to grant bail - However, High Court has set aside the order and in a very cryptic reasoning has granted relief of bail - Order of High Court set aside and order of Sessions Court restored. (Paras 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
By impugned order, High Court has set aside order of Trial Court declining to grant regular bail to respondents and consequently, has allowed petitions for bail. Regular bail was sought by respondents with regard to FIR registered under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 (Sections 148 and 149 deleted and Sections 34, 427, 120B added later on) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Since respondent-accused(s) have been on bail pursuant to impugned order dated 14.11.2024, directed to surrender before Court of Jurisdictional Magistrate or concerned Police Station on or before 16.06.2025, who will take them into custody.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the complainant by being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M- 35115/2024 (O&M) and CRM-M-36312/2024 (O&M).

3. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the order of the Trial Court declining to grant regular bail to the respondents herein and consequently, has allowed the petitions for bail. At this stage itself, it may be mentioned that the regular bail was sought by the respondents herein with regard to the FIR No.30 dated 22.03.2023 which was registered under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 (Sections 148 and 149 deleted and Sections 34, 427, 120B added later on) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) at Police Station Nangal, District Rupnagar.

4. The said FIR was registered based on the statement given by the complainant (hereinafter “appellant”) against accused No. 1 – Mandeep Singh alias Bhoda and accused No.2- Narinder Kumar alias Nindi (hereinafter “respondents”).

5. According to the statement of the appellant, he runs his own crusher under the name 'Sat Sahib' located in the village Haripur. He purchased land measuring approx. 65 acres at the village in Taraf Majri, Tehsil Nangal. He has further stated that abutting to the said land, there is the land of accused No. 1. The appellant alleged that he received a telephonic call at about 11.30 p.m. to the effect that the respondents, accompanied by 7-8 other persons, were using filthy language against the appellant and trespassed onto his land by dismantling the barbed wire fencing on his property. It was further alleged that after receiving the said call, the appellant along with his driver Anil (hereinafter “deceased”), Deepak Kumar and Chowkidar Bahadur Singh had gone to the appellant’s land at Taraf Majri in his Land Cruiser vehicle when the respondents rammed their Fortuner car into the car of the appellant. When appellant came out from his car, accused No. 1 hit the deceased with their car and threw him down. It was alleged that all the accused persons were armed with wooden sticks when they stepped out of their car. Accused No.1 gave a wooden stick blow on the head of the deceased whereas accused No.2 inflicted injuries to the deceased and other persons accompanying the appellant. The appellant witnessed the entire occurrence but fearing for his life, fled the scene and later discovered that the respondents took deceased to the hospital where he was found to be dead.

6. The respondents were arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR on 23.03.2023 and were sent to judicial custody.

7. The Inspector General (IG) Rupnagar Range, Rupnagar, on receipt of complaint from Dev Raj (father of accused No. 2) transferred the investigation in the present matter to Ms. Darpan Ahluwalia, IPS, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

8. A charge sheet was submitted by the SHO, Police Station Nangal before the competent court on 20.06.2023. The JMIC, Rupnagar took cognizance and the matter was committed to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar (hereinafter “trial court”) for trial and adjudication. Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet was filed on 09.10.2023 based on subsequent investigation conducted by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar.

9. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition (CRM-M-62252-2023) under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) before the High Court seeking quashing of charge sheet. The High Court by order dated 15.12.2023 directed the trial court to adjourn the proceedings beyond the date fixed by the High Court (i.e. 09.01.2024). Being aggrieved, the appellant filed SLP (Crl.) Diary No.15274/2024 before this Court, which was dismissed on 13.05.2024 with liberty to the appellant to move an application before High Court for early hearing of the main matter. However, the application filed for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document