Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30882 (PNJ)

BHUPINDER PAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/13766/2023 · 2025-03-18

Sanjiv Berry

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-13766-2023(O&M) -1 152+233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13766-2023(O&M) Date of decision:-18.03.2025 BHUPINDER PAL ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY. Present:- Mr. Sunil Mallan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankit Grewal, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Aditya Dassaur, Advocate, and Ms. Lakshita Dassaur, Advocate for the complainant. ***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) CRM-11135-2025 1. The instant application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS, 2023 is for placing on record certain documents as Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4. 2. The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions, Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4 are taken on record. Registry to tag the same at appropriate place. M ain case 1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in the following case (Annexure P-1):- Gyan Chand 2025.04.09 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13766-2023(O&M) -2 FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 09 25.01.2021 365, 120-B IPC and Section 13 of Punjab Travel Proces- sionals Regulation Act. (302, 370, 417 of IPC added later on) Sadar, District Po- lice Commissioner- ate Jalandhar o. 2), Mo 2. Arguments heard. 3. It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and has no concern with the alleged crime. He contends that petitioner was not named in the FIR but has been nominated lateron, on the basis of suspicion. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2022 and after completion of investigation, challan has already been presented in Court and the conclusion thereof, will take sufficient long time, hence prayed for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition by referring to the reply submitted by the State and contends that co-accused Sakatar Singh, Gurdian Singh, Jasbir Singh, Abdul Rahim and present petitioner in connivance with each other had abducted the son of the complainant namely Tajinder Singh, who was later found dead at Swarna River, Karnataka. He submits that the petitioner was giving full assistance to the co-accused Gurdian Singh in avoiding his arrest and influencing the legal proceedings. He contends that petitioner and other co-accused have played active role in abduction and murder of the son of the complainant and considering the heinous nature and gravity of offence, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail. 5. After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, Gyan Chand 2025.04.09 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13766-2023(O&M) -3 it is observed that present FIR was registered on the complaint of Sohan Singh stating that he had talked with one Harjinder Singh for sending his son to abroad and the said Harjinder Singh informed that he knows one Sakatar Singh, who sends people abroad. The complainant was assured that his son would firstly be sent to Dubai and thereafter from there to Canada on Work ₹ Permit and for that 20,00,000/- will be charged. On 14.12.2020, Sakattar Singh sent flight tickets from Chandigarh to Mumbai and thereafter from Mumbai to Manglore to Harjinder Singh, and the same were sent on complainant’s son Tajinder Singh’s WhatsApp number 98772-05983. Tajinder Singh went to Chandigarh and thereafter he had informed his sister that he has reached Manglore. However, on 16.12.2020, when complainant called his son, the mobile number was found switched off and later his son went missing. Hence, the FIR was registered and during investigation it transpired that accused Sakatar Singh is residing abroad and in search of accused Gurdian Singh raids were conducted. During the course of investigation, statement of sister of Tajinder Singh was recorded and on the basis thereof, co-accused Kulwinder Singh was nominated and arrested on 31.03.2021. During his interrogation, co-accused Kulwinder Singh got recovered a mobile phone make Samsung containing SIM No.9592699195 and one another Redmi mobile phone. The said mobile phones were sent to FSL Mohali, for retrieving the data and it was found that co-accused Kulwinder Singh was in constant touch with the petitioner and co-accused Gurdhian Singh. During further investigation, it was revealed that co-accused Sakattar Singh, Gurdhian Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jasbir Singh and Abdul Rahim had abducted Tajinder Singh and the petitioner, who Gyan Chand 2025.04.09 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13766-2023(O&M) -4 happens to be brother-in-law (Jija) of co-accused Gurdian Singh, also had a hand in kidnapping of Tajinder Singh and the petitioner used to help co-accused Gurdian Singh to avoid his arrest and influence the legal proceedings and also used to manage his money earned from his illegal travel agency. Accordingly, the petitioner was nominated and arrested by the police on 18.01.2022. During the course of further investigation, a dead body of unidentified boy was found at Swarna River, Karnataka and later it was found that it was the dead body of son of the complainant namely Tajinder Singh. Co-accused Gurdhian Singh and Sakatar Singh have been declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court. 6. It is evident from record that there are specific allegations against the petitioner of being in constant touch with co-accused Gurdhian Singh and helping him in avoiding his arrest, who is still at large. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner for grant of regular bail at this stage, as a consequence, the petition is hereby dismissed. 7. Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. 8. Pending application(s) if any shall also stand disposed of. (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 18.03.2025 Gyan i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Gyan Chand 2025.04.09 16:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document