Baljnder Singh Alias Aman vs State Of Punjab

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 2025 INSC 796 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2025 (@SLP(Crl.) No.1427/2025)

BALJINDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. RESPONDENT(s)

AND

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2025 (@SLP(Crl.) No.1743/2025)

J U D G M E N T

Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been preferred by the complainant by

being aggrieved by the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the

High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M-

35115/2024 (O&M) and CRM-M-36312/2024 (O&M).

3. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the

order of the Trial Court declining to grant regular bail to the

respondents herein and consequently, has allowed the petitions

for bail. At this stage itself, it may be mentioned that the

regular bail was sought by the respondents herein with regard

to the FIR No.30 dated 22.03.2023 which was registered under

Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 (Sections 148 and 149 deleted and Signature Not Verified

Sections 34, 427, 120B added later on) Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA of the Indian Penal Date: 2025.06.03 10:56:14 IST Reason: 1 Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) at Police Station Nangal,

District Rupnagar.

4. The said FIR was registered based on the statement

given by the complainant (hereinafter “appellant”) against

accused No. 1 – Mandeep Singh alias Bhoda and accused No.2-

Narinder Kumar alias Nindi (hereinafter “respondents”).

5. According to the statement of the appellant, he

runs his own crusher under the name 'Sat Sahib' located in the

village Haripur. He purchased land measuring approx. 65 acres

at the village in Taraf Majri, Tehsil Nangal. He has further

stated that abutting to the said land, there is the land of

accused No. 1. The appellant alleged that he received a

telephonic call at about 11.30 p.m. to the effect that the

respondents, accompanied by 7-8 other persons, were using

filthy language against the appellant and trespassed onto his

land by dismantling the barbed wire fencing on his property.

It was further alleged that after receiving the said call, the

appellant along with his driver Anil (hereinafter “deceased”),

Deepak Kumar and Chowkidar Bahadur Singh had gone to the

appellant’s land at Taraf Majri in his Land Cruiser vehicle

when the respondents rammed their Fortuner car into the car of

the appellant. When appellant came out from his car, accused

No. 1 hit the deceased with their car and threw him down. It

was alleged that all the accused persons were armed with

wooden sticks when they stepped out of their car. Accused No.1

gave a wooden stick blow on the head of the deceased whereas

2 accused No.2 inflicted injuries to the deceased and other

persons accompanying the appellant. The appellant witnessed

the entire occurrence but fearing for his life, fled the scene

and later discovered that the respondents took deceased to the

hospital where he was found to be dead.

6. The respondents were arrested in connection with

aforesaid FIR on 23.03.2023 and were sent to judicial custody.

7. The Inspector General (IG) Rupnagar Range, Rupnagar, on

receipt of complaint from Dev Raj (father of accused No. 2)

transferred the investigation in the present matter to

Ms. Darpan Ahluwalia, IPS, Assistant Superintendent of Police,

Sub Division Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

8. A charge sheet was submitted by the SHO, Police Station

Nangal before the competent court on 20.06.2023. The JMIC,

Rupnagar took cognizance and the matter was committed to

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar (hereinafter

“trial court”) for trial and adjudication. Thereafter, a

supplementary charge sheet was filed on 09.10.2023 based on

subsequent investigation conducted by Assistant Superintendent

of Police, Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar.

9. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed a petition

(CRM-M-62252-2023) under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) before the High Court

seeking quashing of charge sheet. The High Court by order

dated 15.12.2023 directed the trial court to adjourn the

proceedings beyond the date fixed by the High Court (i.e.

09.01.2024). Being aggrieved, the appellant filed SLP (Crl.)

3 Diary No.15274/2024 before this Court, which was dismissed on

13.05.2024 with liberty to the appellant to move an

application before High Court for early hearing of the main

matter. However, the application filed for that purpose by

the appellant before High Court was dismissed on 16.07.2024.

As such, the interim order passed on 15.12.2023 for

restraining the trial court from proceeding further with trial

proceedings is still in operation.

10. In the above backdrop, the respondents had earlier

preferred an application seeking regular bail under Section

439 of the CrPC before the trial court by way of separate bail

applications bearing Nos. BA-612-2024 (accused No. 1) and

BA-634-2024 (accused No. 2). The same came to be dismissed by

orders dated 21.05.2024 and 24.05.2024 respectively, finding

that accused No. 1 is a habitual offender as eight other

criminal cases have also been registered against him and

keeping in view the gravity of the offences in this case and

the heinous crime alleged to have been committed by the

respondents.

11. Thereafter, the respondents again preferred regular bail

applications bearing Nos. CRM-M-35115/2024 (O&M) (accused No.

1) and CRM-M-36312/2024 (O&M) (accused No. 2) before the High

Court. The High Court allowed the said applications by way of

the common impugned order dated 14.11.2024, thereby enlarging

the respondents on bail. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail,

the appellant-complainant has preferred the instant appeal

before this Court.

4

12. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant,

learned counsel for the first respondent-State and learned

counsel for the respondent-accused(s) at length. We have also

perused the material on record.

13. Appellant’s counsel made a two-fold submissions:

firstly, he drew our attention to the impugned order and

contended that the impugned order is lacking in reasons for

granting relief of bail to the respondents herein inasmuch as

paragraph 12 of the impugned order only records the

submissions in a cryptic manner, the reasoning given in

paragraphs 13 and 14 and consequently, the relief of bail was

granted to the respondents herein.

14. He further submitted that the reasons are erroneous

inasmuch they do not make merit a case for grant of bail. In

this context, it was submitted that the respondents have been,

inter alia, alleged to have committed the offence under

Section 302 IPC, the manner in which the offence was committed

itself is gruesome and was planned and executed in a manner

which reflects that there was a criminal conspiracy amongst

the accused.

15. The Sessions Court rightly declined to grant bail and

the respondent-accused(s) were in jail for a period of one

year and eight months; the chargesheet had been filed and the

supplementary chargesheet had also been filed. However, there

was a challenge made in the High Court in another proceeding

5 which has stayed the trial itself. He therefore, contended

that on the one hand, the respondents-accused have been

granted the relief of bail and on the other hand, there is a

stay of trial. The said orders would require interference at

the hands of this Court inasmuch as the respondents herein

have criminal antecedents and they are not entitled to the

relief of bail having regard to the manner in which the

deceased was put to death. He, therefore, submitted that the

impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the grant of

bail may be cancelled.

16. Learned counsel for the first respondent-State with

reference to his counter affidavit contended that the State is

supporting the case of the appellant-complainant herein and

therefore, having regard to the merits of the case,

appropriate orders may be made in these appeals.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused(s) submitted

that the High Court has rightly identified the reasons as to

why the respondent-accused(s) are entitled to the relief of

bail, the fact the accused themselves carried the deceased to

the hospital and saw to it that he was given treatment

immediately which shows that there was no criminal intent in

their mind; they further submitted that the High Court has

recorded in detail the submissions of the learned counsel for

the respective parties and has come to a right conclusion and

hence there is no merit in these appeals and the same may be

dismissed.

6

18. We have given our consideration to the arguments advanced

at the bar and we have perused the material on record.

19. We note that, inter alia, the respondent-accused (s) have

been alleged to have committed the offence under Section 302 of

the IPC. It may be a fact that the respondent-accused(s) may

have carried the injured victim, who later died, to the

Hospital but he was actually brought dead to the hospital. This

fact will have to be considered de hors from the fact as to who

actually had committed the offence in the first place in the

instant case. The trial court has rightly noted the said aspect

and declined to grant bail. However, the High Court has set

aside the said order and in a very cryptic reasoning has

granted the relief of bail.

20. In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High

Court calls for interference and therefore, the same is set

aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is

restored.

21. Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail

pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct them

to surrender before the Court of the Jurisdictional Magistrate

or the concerned Police Station on or before 16.06.2025, who

will take them into custody.

7

22. In case of failure of the accused to surrender on or

before 16.06.2025, the Police concerned shall take steps to

arrest both the accused.

23. In the meanwhile, the respondent-accused(s) shall

deposit their passports at the Police Station, Nangal,

District Rupnagar on or before 19.05.2025.

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………………………………………………,J.

(B.V. NAGARATHNA)

…………………………………………………………,J.

(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA) NEW DELHI;

MAY 16, 2025

8 REVISED* ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1427/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2024 in CRMM No. 36312/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

BALJNDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER Respondent(s)

(IA No. 20245/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 20243/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH SLP(Crl) No. 1743/2025 (II-B) (IA No. 21934/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 21928/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 16-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dev Datt Kamat, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv.

Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv.

Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.

Mr. VPS Mithewal, Adv.

Mr. Shivam Garg, Adv.

Ms. Varsha Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.

Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.

Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Adv.

Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Adv.

Mr. Sarfaraj Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv.

Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv.

Mr. Aman Dwivedi, Adv.

9 Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR

Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv.

Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Harsh Wadhwani, Adv.

Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Sr. Adv.

Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.

Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv.

Ms. Mehak Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.*

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of

the signed reportable judgment which is placed on the

file.*

In view of the urgency in the matter, the operative

portion of the judgment is released as under:

OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT

In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High

Court calls for interference and, therefore, the same is set

aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is

restored.

Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail

pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct that

they shall surrender and the police shall take them into

custody on 16.06.2025. In the meanwhile, the respondent-

accused(s) shall deposit their passports at the Police Station,

10 Nangal, District Rupnagar on or before 19.05.2025.

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

In view of the aforesaid directions, the operative

portion of the judgment is being released today itself.

(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

11 ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-B

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1427/2025 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-11-2024 in CRMM No. 36312/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh]

BALJNDER SINGH ALIAS AMAN Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER Respondent(s)

(IA No. 20245/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 20243/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH SLP(Crl) No. 1743/2025 (II-B) (IA No. 21934/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 21928/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 16-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dev Datt Kamat, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv.

Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv.

Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.

Mr. VPS Mithewal, Adv.

Mr. Shivam Garg, Adv.

Ms. Varsha Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Lalit Singla, Adv.

Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv.

Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Adv.

Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv.

Mr. Dhruv Kaushik, Adv.

Mr. Sarfaraj Ahmed Siddiqui, Adv. Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv.

12 For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR Ms. Osheen Bhat, Adv.

Mr. Aman Dwivedi, Adv.

Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR

Mr. Pushpinder Singh, AOR Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv.

Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Harsh Wadhwani, Adv.

Mr. Randeep Singh Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv.

Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Ms. Mehak Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Yash Gupta, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in terms of

the signed judgment.

In view of the urgency in the matter, the operative

portion of the judgment is released as under:

OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT

In the circumstances, we find that the order of the High

Court calls for interference and, therefore, the same is set

aside. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court is

restored.

Since the respondent-accused(s) have been on bail

pursuant to the impugned order dated 14.11.2024, we direct that

they shall surrender and the police shall take them into

custody on 16.06.2025. In the meanwhile, the respondent-

accused(s) shall deposit their passports at the Police Station,

13 Nangal, District Rupnagar on or before 19.05.2025.

The appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid

terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

In view of the aforesaid directions, the operative

portion of the judgment is being released today itself.

(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)

14