IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 14^th October, 2025 Pronounced on: 17 t h October, 2025 Tarsem Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Manjit Singh Uppal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Roshandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

***

MANISHA BATRA, J :-

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 18.09.2024 passed in case arising out of FIR No. 44 dated 22.03.2024 registered under Sections 302, 328, 468, 469, 471, 201 and 120-B of IPC, Section 61-A of the Punjab Excise Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station Sunam, District Sangrur, whereby an application for grant of regular bail as filed by the appellant, had been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that the accused Mangal Singh used to sell spurious liquor to his father and other co-villagers. The said Mangal Singh used to purchase such liquor from the appellant and co-accused Gurlal Singh, Harmanpreet Singh, Soma Kaur and Sanju. The complainant had confronted with Mangal Singh but he had proclaimed that he would continue selling spurious liquor. On 21.03.2024, his father along with some other co-villager had purchased liquor from Mangal Singh and had consumed the same. In the next morning, his condition was found to be critical and he disclosed that his entire body was in pain and eye sight was also affected. He was rushed to hospital and died during the course of treatment. Two other co-villagers namely Lachha Singh and Safi, who had also consumed liquor along with the father of the complainant, had also died. The complainant as such prayed for taking action in the matter. The aforementioned FIR was registered on his complaint. Investigation proceedings were initiated.

3. As per the further allegations, during the course of investigation, the accused Mangal Singh was arrested. He suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he had purchased liquor from one Biru Saini @ Biru Baba given to the victim. On his disclosure statement, Channa Ram was nominated as accused who suffered disclosure statement. Offence under Section 201 of IPC was added. In the meanwhile, ten more persons were reported to have died due to consumption of the same liquor. Post mortem examination of the dead bodies were conducted and cause of death was found to be methyl alcohol poisoning. Offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act was added. The appellant was arrested on 17.04.2024. Presently, he along with the co-accused is facing trial for commission of aforementioned offences. He had filed an application for grant of regular bail which had been dismissed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 18.09.2024.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as he was neither involved in manufacturing of any liquor nor he had knowledge that any spurious liquor was being manufactured. He was not directly involved in purchase of liquor. He used to sell liquor under the brand of Shahi which was a licensed manufactured liquor in the State of Haryana on fetching small profit and had no knowledge that any spurious liquor was being manufactured. The ingredients for commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 469 and 471 are not at all attracted against him. He had not supplied any liquor to Mangal Singh which had resulted in causing death of the victim. His complicity in the crime does not stand establish even prima facie. There is no direct evidence to connect him with the subject crime. He has been in custody since long. The main accused Manish and Amrit, who are owners of the factory where the liquor was manufactured have been extended benefit of b