Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramandeep Singh Alias Raman vs State Of Punjab on 24 January, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-60828-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-60828-2024
Reserved on: 09.01.2025
Pronounced on: 24.01.2025
Ramandeep Singh @ Raman ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
175 13.07.2023 Kotwali, District 160, 302, 303, 323, 324, 325,
Kapurthala 326, 332, 186, 353, 148, 149,
120-B IPC
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above came before this Court
under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular
bail.
2. Per paragraph 12 of the bail application and 6 (iii) of status report, the accused has
the following criminal antecedents:-
Sr. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station
No.
1. 153 10.11.2022 379-B, 120-B IPC Chatiwind
2. 02 04.01.2023 379-B(2), 336 IPC, 25 of Arms Chatiwind
Act
3. 04 09.01.2023 379-B IPC Sadar Nakodar
4. 07 11.01.2023 382, 506, 34 IPC, 25-54-59 of Patara, District
Arms Act Jalandhar
3. The facts and allegations are being taken from the status report filed by the State,
which reads as follows:-
“3. That it is respectfully submitted that the present case bearing
FIR No. 175 dated 13.07.2023 under Section 160, 302, 303, 323,
324, 325, 326, 332, 186, 353, 148, 149, 120-B. IPC and Section 42
Jyoti Sharma Prison Act, was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District
2025.01.24 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
1
CRM-M-60828-2024Kapurthala on the complaint of Hemant Sharma, the then
Additional Superintendent, Central Jail, Kapurthala initially
against 22 prisoners.
That the contents of the above FIR No. 175 dated 13.07.2023
are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity as the same
have been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1.
4. That after the registration of the above said FIR, thorough
investigation was conducted and from the footage of the CCTV
cameras at the spot, it has transpired that on 13.07.2023 at about
7.30 AM, about 30-35 inmates inclusion with each other gathered
at Phase-2 gate from their barracks, at Central Jail Kapurthala,
out of which 31 prisoners have already been identified, out of
whom, some of the inmates had weapons and some were empty
handed 21 inmates crossed the gate of Phase-2 and proceeded
towards security ward-E. On the way, on being stopped by the
police and security forces, they scuffled with them as well. These
prisoners entered the Chakki No. 17 of the Security Ward E and
had gravely beaten Simranjit Singh @ Simar son of Resham Singh,
and his 3 companions Surinder Singh @ Jimmy son of Mann Singh,
Amanpreet Singh @ Sonu son of Sarabjit Singh and Varinder Pal
Singh @ Raja were also beaten. And that Simranjit singh @ Simar
was Seriously Injured. The remaining 11 inmates along with about
7-8 unknown inmates stopped the police personnels from closing
the gate of Phase-2, So that there is no disturbance to their fellow
inmates while returning from security Ward-E after the incident.
That, during the investigation it was also found that the present
petitioner was involved in the conspiracy and he along with the
other 35- 36 accused prisoners transpired together to cause injures
to the now deceased inmate namely Simranjit Singh Alias Simar &
his three other accomplices with intention to kill in Ward No- 17
due to old rivalry. The injuries were inflicted upon the deceased
and injured prisoners with blows of a sharp iron weapon.
Subsequently during the treatment, the above said injured Simranjit
succumbed to his injuries at Guru Nanak Medical College Amritsar
on 13.07.2023. On 18.07.2023 a letter no.2760 was received from
the Superintendent, Central Jail, Kapurthala to nominate 10 other
convicts for their involvement in the incident. The petitioner was
nominated vide Rapat No.32 dated 19.07.2023.
Thereafter, on 24.07.2023, the petitioner was produced before
the Ld. Magistrate on production warrant and after seeking mission
was joined in the investigation and arrested. The Ld. Magistrate
duly granted the police remand of the petitioner for 2 days
whereupon after his interrogation, a disclosure statement of the
petitioner was recorded and thereafter he was confined to judicial
custody.”
4. The petitioner’s counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
Jyoti Sharma
2025.01.24 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
2
CRM-M-60828-2024
petitioner and their family.
5. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
6. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report,
which read as follows:-
“(ii) Role of the Petitioner and evidence against the petitioner:
From the final investigation proceedings instituted as yet, CCTV
camera footage, it was found that the present petitioner was involved
in the conspiracy and he along with the other accused 30-
35prisoners conspired ether to cause injures to the now deceased
inmate namely Simranjit Singh Alias Simar & his three other
accomplices with intention to kill in Ward no. 17 due to old rivalry.
The injuries were inflicted upon the deceased and injured prisoners
with sharp edge Iron Weapon- Patti type on the head and other parts
of Simranjit Singh. Subsequently during the treatment, the above
said injured Simranjit succumbed to his injuries at Guru Nanak
Medical College Amritsar on 13.07.2023 after which a case was
registered and an investigation was carried out. That during the
investigation it was found also found that the petitioner along with
21 co- accused crossed the gate of Phase-2 and went to Security
Ward E and inflicted injuries to the deceased of the present incident
while conspiring against the victims due to old rivalry.”
7. The incident took place in the prison in which number of inmates were present.
Even as per status report filed by the State, allegation against the petitioner is of criminal
conspiracy and it is explicitly mentioned that he did not cause any injury to the deceased.
Even the evidence of conspiracy is sketchy which might be sufficient to launch
prosecution or frame charges but is insufficient to deny bail.
8. There is sufficient primafacie evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged
crime. However, pre-trial incarceration should not be a replica of post-conviction
sentencing.
9. Per paragraph 9 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody for last
about 01 year and 04 months.
10. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the
primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other factors peculiar to this case,
there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial incarceration at this stage.
11. The investigation indicates that the petitioner is not the main accused, so the
petitioner’s bail shall not be treated as a precedent for granting bail to the other co-
accused with a higher role.
12. Without commenting on the case’s merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
Jyoti Sharma to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
2025.01.24 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
3
CRM-M-60828-2024
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court’s official
webpage.
13. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest
Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
14. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the
following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
15. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms.
16. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
17. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount
to protect the victim, and their family members, as well as the members of society, and
incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the
closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict
the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed based on the
preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond
reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction].
Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the
petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the
arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from prison and
inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act,
1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of acquittal in this
case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would
instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the
accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
Jyoti Sharma 18. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform
2025.01.24 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
4
CRM-M-60828-2024
and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT
of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29,
decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that
“The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that
they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The
courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the
necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of
rights and liberties must be eschewed.”
19. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of
this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
20. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case’s merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
21. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
22. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
24.01.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Jyoti Sharma
2025.01.24 16:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
5