IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MANPREET SINGH @ MANI ... Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

...Respondents

1 The date when the judgment is reserved 06.03.2026 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 10.03.2026 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 10.03.2026 website

4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced

5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable judgment and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Guraziz Singh Dhillon, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** (cid:1)

MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’) by the appellant against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in case arising out of FIR No.25 dated 20.03.2024 registered under Sections 302, 328, 465, 468, 469, 471, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 61, 61A of the Punjab Excise Act

1914 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST Act, 1989 at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur whereby the application for grant of regular bail as filed by the appellant had been dismissed.

2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of the statement recorded by the complainant Babli Rani on 20.03.2024, alleging therein that her husband Jagjit Singh had purchased liquor on 19.03.2024 from the present appellant and co-accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi, and had consumed the same along with Pragat Singh, a co-villager and Bhola Singh. Her husband had vomited in the night. He did not wake up in the morning and was not even responding. He was taken to the hospital but had died during the course of treatment. She came to know that Pragat Singh and Bhola Singh had also died by consuming the same liquor. She alleged that the appellant and Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi had an altercation with her husband few days back on the question of supplying bad quality of liquor, though the same was subsequently settled. She alleged that the death of her husband had occurred due to consumption of liquor mixed with some poisonous substance at the instance of the present appellant and co-accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi.

3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were initiated. It was revealed that by consuming some liquor, six more persons had died. The appellant and co-accused Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi were arrested on 20.03.2024. The appellant suffered disclosure statement admitting the factum of supplying the spurious liquor. At his instance, 03 bottles of spurious liquor and 09 empty bottles were recovered. Other co-accused were also arrested subsequently. Investigation now stands completed and the appellant alongwith the co-accused is facing trial for the commission of aforementioned offences. He had filed an application for grant of regular bail which has been dismissed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide order dated

18.10.2024.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as he has been falsely implicated in this case on totally baseless allegations. He is a poor labourer and had no connection with any gang dealing with the spurious liquor. The ingredients for commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of SC & ST Act are not attracted against him at all. He is in custody for a period of about 02 years. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by his further incarceration. His involvement in another case registered under the provisions of Section 61 of Excise Act cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him. He has already undergone sentence in that case. With these broad submissions, it is urged that he deserves to be