Titi Sharma @ Tribhawan Deep Sharma vs State Of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1541

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Titi Sharma @ Tribhawan Deep Sharma & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-32442-2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-33698-2021 and CRM-M-32731-2021 and CRM-M-32999-2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-28007-2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-32506-2021
Decided On : 13-09-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Dr. Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sukhcharan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s), for the Appellant; Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate for the complainant, for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 323, 188, 120-B - Anticipatory bail applications filed by accused in FIR No. 17 dated 10.02.2021 for murder during election campaign - Allegation of running over victims with vehicles by accused during a political altercation - Further investigation led to different conclusions regarding intent and driving roles of accused - Court found evidence insufficient to sustain charges under Section 302, re-evaluating to Section 304 IPC instead - Accused granted bail given circumstances of investigation and injury reports. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 50-54)

Facts of the case:
Six petitions filed for anticipatory and regular bail concerning allegations of murder during election-related violence. The FIR claimed the accused ran over the complainants with vehicles, resulting in two deaths. However, subsequent investigation revealed complexities regarding the incident and the involvement of the accused.

Findings of Court:
The Special Investigation Team determined significant facts that understated the initial accusations, emphasizing a need to classify the actions under lesser charges of Section 304 IPC as opposed to 302 IPC due to insufficient evidence of intent.

Issues: Key issues include whether injuries were inflicted intentionally and the responsibility of each accused during the tumultuous incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the injuries described could plausibly have been caused by the circumstances of the crowd and subsequent vehicle actions rather than a deliberate intention to kill, leading to a reassessment of the categorization of offenses under IPC.

Result: Bail applications of various accused dismissed or allowed based on their involvement and the circumstances presented.

Table of Content
1. details of the fir and incidents leading to petition (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding credibility of witnesses and injuries (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. description of the different versions of events (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 27)
4. court's consideration of individual petitioner cases (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
5. bail granted for certain petitioners without specific attributed injuries (Para 39 , 40 , 42 , 43)
6. legal reasoning for granting bail based on health and investigative findings (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
7. final ruling on various petitions (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54)

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J.

1. The present order would dispose of six petitions filed by 7 accused persons in FIR No.17 dated 10.02.2021 under Sections 302 , 323, 188, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station, Moga, District Moga. Titi Sharma @ Tribhawan Deep Sharma has filed CRM-M-32442- 2021 for anticipatory bail (case No.1), Arshdeep Singh @ Lali has filed CRM-M-33698-2021 for anticipatory bail (case No.2), Jaslovepreet Singh Sidhu has filed CRM-M-32731-2021 for anticipatory bail (case No.3), Harmandeep Singh @ Harmandeep Singh Gill has filed CRM-M-32999- 2021 for anticipatory bail (case No.4), Narinder Pal Singh Sidhu has filed CRM-M-28007-2021 for regular bail (case No.5) and Paramjit Singh @ Pamma and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi have together filed CRM-M-32506- 2021 for regular bail (case No.6). In all the aforesaid cases, the FIR and the other documents are similar, however, learned counsel for the parties have argued from CRM-M-32442-2021(case no.1) which has been taken as the lead case.

2. FIR No.0017 dated 10.02.2021 was registered on the statement of Gurtej Singh who had stated that at around 7.30 hours in the evening, he along with Chamkaur Singh were campaigning in favour of his wife Kulwinder Kaur who was contesting the election for Municipal Committee when their opponents Narinder Pal Singh Sidhu (petitioner in case No.5), whose wife Paramjeet Kaur Sidhu was also contesting against Kulwinder Kaur, came in a Pajero Sports SUV, white colour bearing no. PB10-DZ- 9597, which was driven by the said Narinder Pal Singh Sidhu himself and along with him was Jasmail @ Nikku and in the rear part of the said vehicle both nephews of Jasmail @ Nikku were sitting. In the second car i.e. Bolero vehicle bearing no.PB-65-M-3724 which was driven by Jaslovepreet Singh Sidhu (petitioner in case No.3), his brother was sitting alongside whereas on the back seat, Paramjit Singh @ Pamma (petitioner No.1 in case No.6) and two unknown persons were sitting. The third vehicle i.e. a black Scorpio bearing no.PB-05-AJ-0061, was being driven by an unknown person and in the front seat Titi Sharma @ Tribhawan Deep Sharma (petitioner in case No.1) was sitting and on the rear seat, three unknown persons were sitting.

3. In the fourth car which was a Fortuner, one Happy and some unidentified persons were sitting. In the FIR it has further been stated that the said persons were creating hooliganism and when the complainant party which also consisted of Jagdeep Singh @ Bhola (deceased) and Harminder Singh @ Babbu (deceased) tried stopping them from creating hooliganism then the said persons came in rage and with an intention to kill drove their vehicle, as a result of which Harminder Singh died on the spot and Jagdeep Singh @ Bhola was referred to DMC, Ludhiana where later on, he also died.

4. In the present case, a supplementary statement of the said complainant Gurtej Singh was recorded on 12.02.2021 i.e. after two days of the registration of the above said FIR. In the said supplementary statement, complainant Gurtej Singh improved his version and stated that many of the accomplices were having baseball bats and batons in their vehicles and some persons started hitting the complainant party with baseball bats and Arshdeep Singh @ Lali (petitioner in case No.2) attacked Harminder Singh @ Babbu with a baseball bat on the back of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(P&H) 1541

Cases Referred (5)