Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47889 (PNJ)

RAHUL @ RAHUL GILL v. STATE OF PUNJAB

CRM-M/20977/2025 · 2025-04-24

Sandeep Moudgil

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-20977-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 CRM-M-20977-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 24.04.2025 RAHUL @ RAHUL GILL ...PETITIONER Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Jastej Singh, DAG, Punjab. *** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer This petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, for grant of Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner in a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 50, dated 11.03.2025, under Sections 304, 307, 113, 112, 111, 3(5) of BNS, 2023, registered at P.S. Salem Tabri, Ludhiana (ANNEURE P-1). 2. Prosecution story, set up in the present case as per the version in the FIR reads as under :- ‘Stated that I am a resident of the above said address and I am a drive. I have two children one son Arshdeep Singh and one daughter Vimaljit Kaur. That my son Arshdeep Singh's wife Sukhmanpreet Kaur, works as a teacher at Shaligram Jain Public School near our house. That on 06-03-2025, at about 02:55 PM, my daughter in-law Sukhmanpreet Kaur after finishing of the school hour, was returning back home and I was going to pick my Anuradha 2025.04.24 06:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20977-2025 2 daughter in-law from school and when my daughter in-law reached near Funstone Playway School, then on a Splendor motorcycle but two young men came and snatched away my daughter in-law Sukhmanpreet Kaur's white coloured mark Samsung Galaxy mobile phone from her hand. That I ran and tried to apprehend the Splendor motorcycle riders, who quickly drove the motorcycle towards Danamandi, Bahadur Ke Road and ran away. After this incident, my daughter in-law Sukhmanpreet Kaur got very much nervous, so I began to take care for my daughter in- law. Then, I on my own, kept on searching out about the motorcycle riders and also watch the CCTV footage installed near about the place of incident. That now I came to know about their names, the name of the motorcycle driver is Rahul Gill, resident of Street No. 9, Guru Har Rai Nagar, District Ludhiana and the name of the youth sitting behind the motorcycle is Jasveer @ Seer son of Ram Lubhaya, resident of House No. 988/3, Main Street, Guru Har Rai Nagar, District Ludhiana who have formed a gang of snatching. That today also both of them snatched a mobile phone from another girl. That legal action should be taken against above Rahul Gill and Jasveer @ Seer. Today I have recorded my statement with you, heard and found to be correct. SD/-Harjit Singh Bhutta.’ 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the co-accused namely Jasveer Singh @ Seer. He submits that the alleged stolen mobile phone has already stands recovered from the possession of the co-accused Jasveer Singh @ Seer and there is no recovery to be effected from the petitioner. Anuradha 2025.04.24 06:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20977-2025 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer. Notice of motion. On behalf of the State Learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice on instructions from Investigating officer vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of concession of anticipatory bail stating that there are allegations of snatching mobile phone from the complainant’s daughter in law. 4. Analysis Be that as it may, after given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions of counsel for the petitioner that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and the mobile phone was recovered from the co-accused namely Jasveer Singh @ Seer and the petitioner was named only on the basis of the disclosures statement made by him, hence, this Court finds no reason to deny the petitioner the concession of anticipatory bail, wherein the petitioner has bona fide intentions and is willing to join the investigation and cooperate for furtherance of the same so that the final report can be submitted by the Investigating Agency within the stipulated time period. 5. Relief Hence, in view of the admitted set of circumstances before this Court, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on anticipatory bail subject to him joining investigation and reporting to the Investigating Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the terms and conditions as Anuradha 2025.04.24 06:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20977-2025 4 envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS of which are reproduced below :- ‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’ However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically stand cancelled. The petition in the aforesaid terms stand allowed. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 24.04.2025 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable `Yes/No Anuradha 2025.04.24 06:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document