Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2643

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2643

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MR DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
Gurwinder Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-35728 of 2022
Decided On : 01-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Anuj Nagrath, Advocate; For the Petitioner in CRM-M-35728-2022
Mr. R.S. Randhawa and Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocates; For the Petitioner in CRM-M-43219-2022
Mr. R.S. Khaira, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Grant of regular bail for serious offenses - The petitioners sought bail in a murder case (FIR No.33 dated 23.03.2021) involving multiple accused and various sections of IPC - Petitioners claimed they were not named in the FIR and that witnesses’ testimonies were weak or based on hearsay - The court emphasized the need for evaluating eye witness accounts against the gravity of the offenses committed - The differing roles attributed to co-accused were considered significant in denying bail - Petitioners were accused of serious charges including use of sharp weapons and causing multiple injuries to the deceased, making their case distinct - Bail was denied based on the nature of evidence presented and the circumstances of the crime. (Paras 4, 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners are accused in a murder case where the deceased was found with multiple sharp-edged weapon injuries. An FIR was lodged after complaints about the involvement of the petitioners in the murder. Various witness statements were recorded implicating them directly.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the roles of the petitioners were distinct, significantly contributing to the violent nature of the crime, which involved several injuries to the deceased.

Issues: Whether the petitioners can be granted bail based on the claims of hearsay evidence and the lack of their names in the FIR, versus the gravity of their alleged actions and the eyewitness testimony.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the strong testimony of eyewitnesses, corroborated by the nature of the allegations and the roles played by the petitioners, outweighed their claims regarding the weakness of evidence against them. Thus, their request for bail was unjustified.

Result: Bail dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the murder case (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments for and against bail (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's analysis and reasoning on bail consideration (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. conclusion and order on bail denial (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Mr Deepak Gupta, J.

Prayer in both the petitions titled above filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail in FIR No.33 dated 23.03.2021 registered at Police Station Sadar Raikot, District Ludhiana for the offences under Sections 302 , 328, 341 / 34 IPC ( Sections 148 , 149 & 120B IPC added later on)

Fir Version

2. FIR was lodged on the statement of Jaswinder Singh, as per which on 23.03.2021, he was in his fields when at about 6:30 AM, he was informed by one Baljinder Singh that dead body of his brother Rajinder Singh along with his scooter, was lying on Rasulpur road near Nanaksar Thath. Complainant reached there and found his brother Rajinder Singh to have died having several injuries on his person caused by sharp-edged weapons. Red chilli powder was laying spread there.

Investigation

3. (i) The Investigating Officer visited the spot, inspected the same and collected physical evidence. Postmortem examination on the dead body of Rajinder Singh was got conducted. 13 injuries were found on the person of the deceased. On 05.04.2021, Surinder Singh @ Sherry son of the deceased Rajinder Singh made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as per which at the time of occurrence, he was in Canada and came to India on 26.03.2021 after coming to know about the death of his father. He disclosed that his father i.e., deceased used to tell him that Harwinder Singh @ Kakku, Manpreet Singh and Amandeep Singh (petitioner in CRM-M- 43219-2022) used to use bad language against him whenever they met him on the way and that he (deceased) used to feel danger from them. It was further stated by Surinder Singh that he had made enquiries at his level and came to know that murder of his father was committed by above three persons, i.e., Harwinder Singh @ Kakku, Manpreet Singh & Amandeep Singh along with two others namely Gurwinder Singh (petitioner in CRM- M-35728-2022) and Gursewak Singh @ Guri @ Golu.

(ii) Further, as per prosecution, on 06.04.2021, one Ramandeep Singh made statement to the police, as per which the 5 accused named above had made extra judicial confession before him to have committed the murder of deceased Rajinder Singh, after hatching a conspiracy.

(iii) On 12.04.2021, Harwinder Singh @ Kakku, Manpreet Singh and Amandeep Singh (petitioner) were arrested. Gurwinder Singh and Gursewak Singh were also arrested on the same day on the identification of the co-accused. Complainant Jaswinder Singh identified them and informed the IO that he had seen them visiting the house of Harwinder Singh @ Kakku several times.

(iv) On 15.05.2021, one Kamaljeet Singh made statement before the Police and stated that he along with Sikander Singh had witnessed the occurrence. As per him, he had seen Amandeep Singh, Gurwinder Singh along with one unknown person (later on identified as Gursewak Singh) inflicting injuries upon the deceased Rajinder Singh. It was stated by him that Gurwinder Singh had spread chilli powder in the eyes of Rajinder Singh; and then Amandeep Singh and Gurwinder Singh had caused injuries with their kirpan on the head, face, neck and other body parts of Rajinder Singh; whereas, the other person (Gursewak Singh) had given danda blows on the back and thighs of Rajinder Singh. It was further stated by him that he did not disclose about the occurrence earlier to anybody due to fear that assailants could commit his murder also and it is only after the arrest of the assailants that he had made statement before the police.

(v) After completion of investigation, challan was filed in the Court.

Contentions On Behalf of Both The Petitioners

4. It is contended by ld. counsel on behalf of both the petitioners i.e. Gurwinder Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-35728-2022) an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document