The court denied bail based on the gravity of allegations involving incitement to violence, potential witness tampering, and the need to ensure trial integrity.

JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)

The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0138 dated 05.05.2023, under Sections 295-A, 298, 153- A, 506 & 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a second successive bail petition filed by the petitioner since earlier a bail petition was filed before this Court in CRM-M-31455-2023 and it was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.08.2023 with liberty to approach the Court concerned. Thereafter, he approached the learned Court below by filing an application but the same was dismissed on 24.08.2023 and thereafter, the present petition has been filed and therefore, the present successive bail petition is maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where the petitioner is in custody from 12.05.2023 and the police has completed the investigation and now the charges have also been framed on 31.08.2023. He also submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are that one person by the name of Sudhir Suri, who was the President of Shiv Sena Taksali, Punjab at Amritsar, was killed on 04.11.2022 and thereafter, as per the allegation, the petitioner uploaded his own video along with the other co-accused, namely, Saurav Setia on the Facebook in which he is saying that they will not leave any Sardar alive and they will fight with them and by calling bad names to the Sardars, he also stated that whatever they want to do, they can do and this 1% community will be taken out of their houses and will be dragged and beaten up and they will cut each and every Sardar because the person, who had killed the aforesaid deceased was a Sardar. He further submitted that the petitioner had uploaded the aforesaid video in a fit of anger as he was associated with the deceased person in his organization and it was not intentional. He further submitted that thereafter, on realizing his mistake, after about one week, he uploaded another video and tendered an apology pertaining to the aforesaid video. He also submitted that in view of aforesaid submissions, the offences under Sections 295A, 53A and 298 IPC are not attracted and since the petitioner is already in custody from 12.05.2023, he may be considered for grant of regular bail.

4. On the other hand, Mr. G.S. Sidhu, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner and submitted that it is a case where after the aforesaid Sudhir Suri was killed, who was heading the Shiv Sena unit. The present petitioner along with the other co-accused, namely, Saurav Setia, intentionally uploaded the aforesaid video specifically targeting the Sikh community with the sole purpose of causing riots and arson. He further submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR are very serious and grave and considering the gravity and magnitude of the offence he does not deserve the concession of regular bail. He also submitted that based upon the allegations, the charges were framed on 31.08.2023 but no witness has been examined till date and while referring to the affidavit filed by the State, he submitted that there is a strong apprehension that in case the petitioner is released on bail then he can tamper with the evidence, intimidate or influence the prosecution witnesses or even abscond from justice and therefore, it can also seriously prejudice the trial of the case.

5. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab further referred to Para No.9 of the affidavit and submitted that the intention of the petitioner for killing the Sikhs was clear from the fact that on the date when the aforesaid Sudhir Suri was killed, the petitioner along with the other co-accused, ransacked the shop of the person, who had allegedly killed the aforesaid person and put it on fire and