108/5

CRM-M-32633-2021 (O&M)
BALWINDER SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CRM-M-19062-2021 (O&M)
BALWINDER SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CRM-M-25736-2021 (O&M)
HARSIMRAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

CRM-M-34833-2021 (O&M)
HARSHPREET SINGH @ HARRY VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M-50056-2021 (O&M)
AMANDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

Present: - Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate,

for the petitioner (in CRM-M-32633-2021 and
CRM-M-19062-2021)
Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate,
for respondent No. 9.
Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate,
for respondents no. 10 and 11
(in CRM-M-32633-2021)

Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Swati Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
and
Mr. Ramnish Puri, Advocate, for the complainant
(in CRM-M-25736, 34833, 50006-2021)

Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

*****

Case heard via video conferencing.

Despite the order of this court dated 01.02.2022, no

affidavit of the Commissioner of Police has been filed as regards the

final outcome of the departmental proceedings against Inspector Balkar

Singh, as have been referred to in previous orders.

If such an affidavit is not filed at least five days before the

next date of hearing, the Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, shall

personally remain present in court on that date itself.

1 of 7
::: Downloaded From Local Server on - 07-05-2022 15:07:16 :::
CRM-M-32633-2021 and other connected cases -2-

CRM-M-32633-2021

As already noticed in the earlier orders, vide this petition,

the petitioner who is the complainant in the FIR in question (registered

after the unfortunate death of the son, alleging therein the commission of

an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC), challenges the

order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated

08.07.2021, whereby respondents no. 9 to 11 have been ordered to be

released on bail under the provision of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., with the

impugned order thereby reversing the order of the learned trial court

dated 15.06.2021, dismissing their application filed under that provision.

The reasoning of the trial court was based on the fact that

the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. had been submitted within 90

days of the arrest of all accused, including respondents no.9 to 11, and

consequently simply because that report stated that so far (up till that

point) the police had not gathered sufficient evidence against

respondents no.9 to 11 but would be filing a supplementary report under

the provisions of sub section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C., that would not

mean that the police had found them innocent or that no charge sheet

had been filed; and consequently they were not entitled to the benefit of

'statutory bail' in terms of the proviso to Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., even on

the touchstone of the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'Dinesh Dalmia

vs CBI', (2007) 8 SCC 770 .

The learned revisional court (Additional Sessions

Judge) however, vide the impugned order, held that the police having

2 of 7
::: Downloaded From Local Server on - 07-05-2022 15:07:17 :::
CRM-M-32633-2021 and other connected cases -3-

specifically stated that it had not been able to gather sufficient evidence

against respondents no.9 to 11 herein but had arraigned the other three

accused as such in that report, those other accused would not be entitled

to the concession under the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., with a

report under the provisions of Section 173(2) thereof having been

submitted within 90 days, but respondents no.9 to 11 herein would be

entitled to 'statutory bail' in terms of the said provision, as no report

indicting them had been filed.

In the opinion of this court, as a matter of fact though the

ratio of the judgment in Dinesh Dalmia's case (supra) may not have

been applicable as has been pointed out by Mr. Ghai, learned senior

counsel appearing for respondent no.9, inasmuch as the police had

actually found some evidence against Dinesh Dalmia but had sought

further time to gather more evidence and the report under Section 167(2)

Cr.P.C. had been submitted to that effect, and therefore it was held by

the Supreme Court that the police having already indicted him to a

certain extent, he was not entitled to 'statutory bail'; yet, as regards

respondents no.9 to 11 herein, in my opinion (prima facie at this stage),

the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in his order as did the

learned trial court, inasmuch as, on the ground that no sufficient

evidence had been found against them till that stage, but with the police

still further investigating the matter, they could have been released on

interim bail on the merits of that report (to the effect that sufficient

evidence against them had not been gathered till that stage),

but they should not have been released on bail under the provisions

3 of 7
::: Downloaded From Local Server on - 07-05-2022 15:07:17 :::
CRM-M-32633-2021 and other connected cases -4-

of sub Section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C., thereby ousting any chance for

the investigating agency to re-arrest them if eventually some evidence

was gathered against them.

In fact, that is what this court now proposes to do, with no

report under Section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. still having been filed as per all

learned counsel, including the learned State counsel.

However, to enable learned senior counsel for respondents

no.9 to 11 to address arguments in terms of any law settled on that issue,

contrary to what has been observed here-in-above by this court,

adjourned to 24.02.2022.

CRM-M-19062-2021

Vide this petition, the petitioner seeks that a fair and

impartial investigation be conducted in case FIR no. 205 dated

03.12.2020 under the provisions of Section 302/34 of the IPC, registered

at Police Station Shimlapuri, District Ludhiana, by an independent

agency like the Bureau of Investigation or the CBI or even by a Special

Investigation Team to be headed by a person not below the rank of

Inspector General of Police.

As a matter of fact in my opinion this petition has been

rendered infructuous with the Bureau of Investigation (commonly

known as the Crime Branch), already investigating the matter; but

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because even as per the

affidavit filed by the AIG (Crime Range Ludinana), dated 19.01.2022,

the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory is awaited to

4 of 7
::: Downloaded From Local Server on - 07-05-2022 15:07:17 :::
CRM-M-32633-2021 and other connected cases -5-

further come to any conclusion qua respondents no. 9 to 11, the matter

may be kept pending till a fresh status report is filed.

Adjourned to 24.02.2022 with the AIG (Crime Branch,

Ludhiana) directed to file a status report also stating as to why the matter

was referred to the CFSL and not to any of the Punjab Forensic Science

Laboratories, with the CFSL already burdened with cases pertaining to

not just the CBI in this part of the country but also from all northern

states.

The Director, CFSL, Chandigarh, is also directed to

expedite the matter and submit its report at the very earliest qua the

material that has been sent to that laboratory by the Bureau of

Investigation, Punjab.

CRM-M-25736, 34833, 50056-2021

As regards these three petitions (CRM-M-25736, 34833,

50056-2021), by which the petitioners therein seek to be admitted to bail

under the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C, Mr. Chadha, learner senior

counsel appearing for them, reiterates that there is no evidence at all that

the deceased (Daya Singh) was murdered, with only one scab found with

regard to an injury on his left toe and that the septicemia would also

have been caused due to such injury, and consequently the petitioners

who are all young men studying for a degree in physiotherapy, deserve

to be admitted to bail, they having been in custody for 10 months now;

and especially with no suspicion having been raised at all against them

5 of 7
::: Downloaded From Local Server on - 07-05-2022 15:07:17 :::
CRM-M-32633-2021 and other connected cases -6-

for a period of about 1-1/2 months after the deceased had died and with

the complaint made by the father of the deceased being only one so

made thereafter.

Per contra, learner counsel for the complainant points to the

affidavit earlier filed of the AIG, Crime (prior to 27.08.2021), wherein it

was stated that as per the opinion of the Board of Doctors (finally

constituted after specific directions issued by this court), that though no

poison was detected in the contents of the exhibits, another reason

possible for septicemia could be ''Asphyxia due to aspiration (frothy

secretions in both lungs), chemical induced, poisoning induced

(generalized cyanosis and visceral congestion) etc.''

He further submits upon query of this court that the

petitioners herein were, along with their other co-accused, named by the

father as the persons who had murdered his son, upon questions having

been put to them with regard to his death, since he was found riding the

scooter of one of the accused (not the present petitioners but of Naman

Garg), all of them being room mates and with them not having answered

any question satisfactorily; and further, with their also being CCTV

footage available as regards all the accused having been seen with the

deceased one night prior to the discovery of his dead body.

At this stage learner State counsel submits that he has just

received information that the CFSL report, as regards the CCTV footage,

has been received by the Bureau of Investigation but with the report

saying that it was inconclusive.

6 of 7
::: Downloaded From Local Server on - 07-05-2022 15:07:17 :::
CRM-M-32633-2021 and other connected cases -7-

For the AIG, Crime, to file a fresh status report, adjourned

to 24.02.2022.

To be shown in the urgent motion list.

To be taken up as the second case of the day.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the other

connected cases.

14.02.2022 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH)

preeti JUDGE

7 of 7
::: Downloaded From Local Server on - 07-05-2022 15:07:17 :::