Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Bhupinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRM-M-12516 of 2020
Decided on : 09-06-2020
BAIL - Grant of bail pending trial under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - Sections 120-B/148/149/302/307/323/427 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act, and Section 3 of SC/ST Act - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the gravity of the charges under Sections 302, 120-B, 148, 149, as well as other ancillary offences of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act, and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. It highlighted the role of the petitioner as the mastermind of the crime and the potential threat to the prosecution witnesses if granted bail. The court also considered the medical condition of the petitioner and the circular dated 02.05.2020 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Jails, in relation to chronic diseases, but found it inapplicable to the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail pending trial in a case involving serious charges under Sections 120-B/148/149/302/307/323/427 of IPC, Section 25 of Arms Act, and Section 3 of SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with co-accused, orchestrated the murder of a scheduled caste young boy and caused serious injuries to others during a birthday celebration, and the court found sufficient material indicating the petitioner's active participation in the crime.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's involvement in the crime was well-established, and the gravity of the charges, along with the potential threat to prosecution witnesses, led to the dismissal of the bail application.
Issues: The issues involved the gravity of the charges, the petitioner's alleged role as the mastermind, the potential threat to prosecution witnesses, and the applicability of the circular dated 02.05.2020 in relation to the petitioner's medical condition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the gravity of the charges, the petitioner's active participation in the crime, and the potential threat to prosecution witnesses if the petitioner was granted bail. The court also considered the inapplicability of the circular dated 02.05.2020 to the petitioner's medical condition.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner, in FIR No.83 dated 28.06.2018, under Sections 120-B/148/149/302/307/323/427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'Arms Act') (Sections 506/201 of IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act') added later on), registered at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula.
2. The FIR case was registered at the instance of complainant Yog Raj @ Pinki son of Sucha Ram aged 28 years resident of Village Majra Mehtab, P.S. Kalka, with the allegations that on 28.06.2018, he along with his friends, Satish @ TT resident of Majra Mehtab, Aman son of Satpal, Deepa @ Dalip, Lakhwinder @ Happy, Harvinder @ Pola residents of Majra Mehtab, Vikram @ Vicky (since deceased) resident of Ghatiwala, Pinjore and Mahinder @ Minder son of Lajja Ram, Village Majra Mehtab gathered at Paploha sand outlet for birthday celebration of Vikram @ Vicky. At about 4.30 PM six vehicles having about 30 young boys armed with sticks, swords, rods, guns etc. came from Kherawali side. He noticed that Umesh Kumar @ Matru, Akram resident of Panga Majri, Ishar Nagar, Pamma resident of Baddi armed with .12 bore gun each and Gurmeet @ Roda resident of Sukhomajri, Madan @ Maddu, Satta resident of Manakpur, Makhan resident of Sukhomajri, Rinku resident of Kattal Barottiwala, Gola resident of Khada Pathar Wasudevpura, Deepu Kaimbwala, Sourav Jassu resident of Pinjore, Billa resident of near Chikan, were armed with pistols and swords and they started indiscriminate firing. Upon noticing firing, Vikram @ Vicky tried to hide himself on the rear seat of Scorpio No.HR49-C-9358, but Umesh Kumar @ Matru, Pamma Baddi and Akram fired indiscriminately and due to that Vikram @ Vicky died on the spot inside the Car. When they tried to save themselves, then Makhan Sukhomajri, Madan @ Maddu, Gurmeet @ Roda Sukhomajri, Gola resident of Khara Pathar, Rinku r/o Kattal Barottiwala, Billa resident of Chikan, Satta Manakpur, Deepu resident of Kaimbwala, Ram Gopal @ Pallu R/o Kona, Sourav Jassu, Yashpal @ Yashu Resident of Tagra Hansua, ran after them while firing along with other accomplices and on account of this Dalip @ Deepa suffered a gunshot injury on his waist, Lakhwinder @ Happy suffered a gun shot injury on his arm, Mahinder @ Minder given sword blow, Harvinder @ Pola gun shot injury, Nirmal @ Happy suffered a rod blow. On hearing the firing, people started gathering there and all the assailants damaged one Alto Car (HR-49-C-7838) with their rods and while firing they ran away towards Kalka side in their respective vehicles. All the assailants had come on the place of occurrence at the instance of Bhupinder Singh @ Babu and Sham Lal Tagra to murder him (complainant) and his friends. All the accused came there on account of previous enmity of the complainant with Bhupinder Singh @ Babu & Sham Lal Tagra, and in order to take revenge, they had sent about young boys of their gang to kill the complainant as well as others, on account of which Vikram @ Vicky died on the spot due to firing whereas others sustained injuries. Bhupinder @ Babu and Sham Lal Tangra connived with each other and sent 30 boys in order to commit the crime and they came in two white colour Scorpio, one white colour Verna car, One white colour Brezza, one white Swift car and one Alto Car of golden colour.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is in custody since 30.06.2018, after investigation in the matter, challan has already been presented; charges were framed on 29.10.2019 and now the case is pending for prosecution evidence. Further contended that out of total 67 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till date. Also contended that nothing incriminating wa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
