CRM-M-24325- 217 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Aman Kotli alias Aman State of Punjab CORAM: Present:- SUMEET GOEL 1. Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), and ‘IPC’), at Police Station 2. petition by the petitioner) is as follows: preparing to sleep and around 10:00 PM, we saw that the lights were -2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Aman Kotli alias Aman versus Punjab HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Vishva Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG Punjab. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C. the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.0171 dated ences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short at Police Station C-Division, Amritsar. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present petition by the petitioner) is as follows:- “Statement of Sikander son of Raj Kumar, no.1086, Gali Khajoor Wali, I/s Gilwali Gate, Amritsar, aged 38 years. Stated that I am the resident of above stated address and I am working as a sweeper at Municipal Corporation. Shankar son of Bhagwan Das resident of Gali Khajoor Wali, 1/s Gilwali Gate, Amritsar and his brother Jhona are my neighbors and a couple of days back, the outer roof of their house fell due to which they were not residing in this house. We were preparing to sleep and around 10:00 PM, we saw that the lights were 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-24325-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: July 23, 2025 ….Petitioner ….Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL for the petitioner. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Cr. P.C.’) for grant of regular bail to dated 16.12.2020, registered for ences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short Division, Amritsar. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present Statement of Sikander son of Raj Kumar, resident of House no.1086, Gali Khajoor Wali, I/s Gilwali Gate, Amritsar, aged 38 years. Stated that I am the resident of above stated address and I am working as a sweeper at Municipal Corporation. Shankar son of Bhagwan Das , 1/s Gilwali Gate, Amritsar and his brother Jhona are my neighbors and a couple of days back, the outer roof of their house fell due to which they were not residing in this house. We were preparing to sleep and around 10:00 PM, we saw that the lights were on 1 2024 (O&M) , 2025 Petitioner ….Respondent Code of for grant of regular bail to registered for ences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out in the present resident of House no.1086, Gali Khajoor Wali, I/s Gilwali Gate, Amritsar, aged 38 years. Stated that I am the resident of above stated address and I am working as a sweeper at Municipal Corporation. Shankar son of Bhagwan Das , 1/s Gilwali Gate, Amritsar and his brother Jhona are my neighbors and a couple of days back, the outer roof of their house fell due to which they were not residing in this house. We were on MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-24325- 3. is in custody since submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has witnesses, namely, thus, the trial is not likely to culminate in conviction of the petitioner. Thus, regular bail has been prayed for. 4. arguing that the allegations raised and, thus, he State counsel has further submitted that and thus, he ought not to be extended the concession of regular bail as ther is another FIR to place on record custody certificate dated 22.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. 5. the available re 6. investigation was carried out and challan was presented on -2024 (O&M) in the room at first floor in Shankar's house. After hearing the raula in the house of Shankar, Kishore and his wife Rajni, who are residing opposite to the house of Shankar, saw a man yearning. Buta Ram, Rakesh son of Vijay Kumar went to the spot and saw an unknown person in Mehndi T-shirt, Black lower and blue and white socks and there was a bullet wound on the right side of his back and blood was oozing out of the same. I left Kishore and rakesh near the dead body and have come to inform you. I have recorded my statement. Legal action may kindly be taken. Before I reached, the person had already died. Learned counsel for the petitioner has is in custody since 31.12.2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in Learned counsel for the petitioner has , namely, Himanshu (PW5) and Prince (PW10) the trial is not likely to culminate in conviction of the petitioner. Thus, regular bail has been prayed for. Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition arguing that the allegations raised against the petitio he does not deserve the concession of the regular bail State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offence and thus, he ought not to be extended the concession of regular bail as ther FIR, in which he has been convicted. to place on record custody certificate dated 22.07.2025 in Court, which is taken on record. I have heard counsel for the rival the available records of the case. The petitioner was arrested on investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 2 in the room at first floor in Shankar's house. After hearing the raula in the wife Rajni, who are residing opposite to the house of Shankar, saw a man yearning. 1, along with Kishore son of y Kumar went to the spot and saw an shirt, Black lower and blue and white socks and there was a bullet wound on the right side of his back and blood was oozing out of the same. I left Kishore and rakesh near the dead body and to inform you. I have recorded my statement. Legal action may Before I reached, the person had already died.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the prosecution Prince (PW10) have turned hostile; the trial is not likely to culminate in conviction of the petitioner. Thus, Learned State counsel has opposed the present petition by against the petitioner are serious in nature does not deserve the concession of the regular bail. Learned the petitioner is a habitual offence and thus, he ought not to be extended the concession of regular bail as there , in which he has been convicted. Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 22.07.2025 in Court, which is rival parties and have gone through The petitioner was arrested on 30.12.2020 whereinafter investigation was carried out and challan was presented on 23.03.2021. Total 2 in the room at first floor in Shankar's house. After hearing the raula in the wife Rajni, who are residing opposite 1, along with Kishore son of y Kumar went to the spot and saw an shirt, Black lower and blue and white socks and there was a bullet wound on the right side of his back and blood was oozing out of the same. I left Kishore and rakesh near the dead body and to inform you. I have recorded my statement. Legal action may that the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in the prosecution have turned hostile; the trial is not likely to culminate in conviction of the petitioner. Thus, by are serious in nature Learned the petitioner is a habitual offence e Learned State counsel seeks to place on record custody certificate dated 22.07.2025 in Court, which is parties and have gone through whereinafter Total MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-24325- 30 prosecution witnesses have been cited examined and 04 have take its own time. issues; including the FIR in question the petitioner as also the veracity/ hostile witness does not deem it appropriate to delve deep int this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. custody certificate dated petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than years and 04 petitioner is stated to be cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 -2024 (O&M) prosecution witnesses have been cited, examined and 04 have been given up. Indubitably take its own time. The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable ; including as to whether the petitioner has been falsely implicated into the FIR in question, the evidentiary value of the material available against the petitioner as also the veracity/ weightage required to be witnesses; shall be gone into during the course of trial. This Court deem it appropriate to delve deep int stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. custody certificate dated 22.07.2025 filed by petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 04 months. Further, as per the said custody certificate the petitioner is stated to be involved in 02 more cases. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586 Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 3 , out of which, 12 have been Indubitably, conclusion of trial will The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable petitioner has been falsely implicated into , the evidentiary value of the material available against weightage required to be given to the during the course of trial. This Court deem it appropriate to delve deep into these rival contentions, at stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the process of justice or interfering with the prosecution evidence. As per filed by the learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than 04 Further, as per the said custody certificate the more cases. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments of this 3 12 have been trial will The rival contentions raised at Bar give rise to debatable petitioner has been falsely implicated into , the evidentiary value of the material available against to the during the course of trial. This Court o these rival contentions, at stage, lest it may prejudice the trial. Nothing tangible has been brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner absconding from the As per learned State counsel, the 04 Further, as per the said custody certificate the more cases. However, this factum cannot be a ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the facts/circumstances of the said FIR. Reliance in this regard can be placed Maulana Mohd. Amir ; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of & judgments of this MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-24325- Court in CRM Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and RCR (Criminal) 191. undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bou -2024 (O&M) Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as , decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. RCR (Criminal) 191. Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not mis (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. (iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to Investigating Officer/SHO of c and shall not change his cell permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. (vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay trial. 4 2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State of Balraj v. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty nd by the following conditions:- The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted. The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence, oral or documentary, during the trial. The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the Investigating Officer/SHO of concerned Police Station shall not change his cell-phone number without prior permission of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the 4 Akhilesh Singh v. State of State of Haryana, 1998 (3) Suffice to say, further detention of the petitioner as an In view of above, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the concerned CJM/Duty before the the oncerned Police Station prior the MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-24325- 8. which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. opinion on the merits of the case. 11. application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. July 23, 2025 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: -2024 (O&M) In case of breach of any of the aforesaid condition which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 5 In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 5 s and those which may be imposed by concerned CJM/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove or upon showing any other sufficient cause, the State/complainant shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.23 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment