Sarabjit Singh Alias Shabha vs State Of Punjab

Manisha Batra, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking regular bail in the FIR mentioned below:-

The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement recorded by the complainant Sultan Singh alleging therein that on 01.11.2024, he along with his friends Harbir Singh, Harmanjit Singh and Jagrup Singh was going to attend a party at Village Havelian and picked his friend Gurjant Singh alias Janta from his house at Village Cheema Khurd. When they reached near flour mill of Baldev Singh in Innova car, he found some persons while bursting crackers on the road. He advised them to not to do so and then a verbal altercation had taken place between them. The complainant had left that place. While returning, the petitioner accompanied by the co--accused and armed with weapons, waylaid the complainant and his companions by stopping the vehicle. Accused Rajandeep Singh made an exhortation. Accused Jasbir Singh fired two shots with a firearm. The pallets of the same hit Harmanjit Singh @ Hamma. Accused Amritpal Singh fired shots upon the complainant and his friends who had a narrow escape. Another shot fired by Amritpal Singh hit the head of Harbir Singh alias Bhola. Accused Mehekdeep Singh struck a blow with datar on the head of Jagrup Singh and the petitioner, after taking out 02 cartridges, handed over the same to accused Jasbir Singh alias Jassu who, after emptying the rifle, loaded those cartridges in his rifle and fired two shots. Some of the pellets hit Jagrup Singh alias Jupa. The accused Gurwinder Singh struck a blow with datar on the head of complainant. On clamour being raised, the assailants fled away. Injured Harbir Singh alias Bhola succumbed to the injuries sustained by him during the course of treatment. The petitioner was arrested on 09.11.2024. He suffered disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the crime and got recovered a DBBL rifle used at the time of committing the subject offences. Investigation now stands concluded.

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has suffered incarceration of a period of about 0202 years. No specific injury or overt act has been attributed to him, and the only allegation is of handing over 02 cartridges to the co-accused, which are without any basis. A false recovery has been planted upon him. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining him in custody. The co-accused Gurwinder Singh has been extended benefit of bail. Principle of parity weighs in his favour. It is, therefore, argued that he deserves to be given concession of bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that taking into consideration the nature of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, who was named in the FIR and from whom recovery of firearm has been effected, he does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail.

This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is alleged to have formed membership of an unlawful assembly with the co-accused. The members of this assembly had opened assault upon the complainant and victim Harbir Singh, who lost his life. No specific injury has been attributed to him, and the only allegations against him are of handing over two cartridges to the co-accused. He himself is not alleged to have used it. He has been in custody since 13.11.2024. Only 02 out of 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and, therefore, it is obvious that the trial will take considerable time to conclude. The petitioner has been linked with the offence with the aid of Section 190 of BNS. It is well settled that in case of group violence, individual roles must be specifically established and same level of culpability cannot be imputed to all the accused on account of mere presence. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, but without to make any comment on the merits of the case lest the same prejudice the trial in any manner whatsoever, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for release on bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found involved in any other subsequent case or misuses the concession of bail.

Since the main petition has been disposed of, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.