CRA-S-2354-202 IN THE H MANPREET SIN STATE OF PUNJ 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Mr. G Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Scheduled Caste a (for short ‘SC/ST passed by the Co arising out of FIR 465, 468, 469, 471 2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH T SINGH @ MANI Versus
PUNJAB AND ANR. he date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS r. P.S. Sekhon, Senior Advocate wi Mr. Guraziz Singh Dhillon, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab ****
BATRA, J. (ORAL)
The instant appeal has been filed aste and the Scheduled Tribes (Preve SC/ST Act’) by the appellant agains he Court of Learned Additional Ses of FIR No.25 dated 20.03.2024 regist 9, 471, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 61, JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH
CRA-S-2354-2025 (O&M) ... Appellant ...Respondents served 06.03.2026 onounced 10.03.2026 loaded on the 10.03.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA
ate with vocate for the Appellant filed under Section 14-A of the (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 18.10.2024 al Sessions Judge, Sangrur in case registered under Sections 302, 328, on 61, 61A of the Punjab Excise Act M) llant
s the 1989 2024 case 328, Act AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-2354-202 1914 and Section District Sangrur w appellant had been 2. The statement recorde therein that her hu the present appel consumed the sam Her husband had was not even resp course of treatmen also died by cons Sukhwinder Singh on the question subsequently settl due to consumpti instance of the pre 3. After It was revealed tha appellant and co 20.03.2024. The supplying the spur 09 empty bottles 2025 (O&M) 2 ection 3(2)(v) of the SC&ST Act, 1 grur whereby the application for grant d been dismissed. The aforementioned FIR was reg ecorded by the complainant Babli R her husband Jagjit Singh had purchas appellant and co-accused Sukhwind same along with Pragat Singh, d had vomited in the night. He did no n responding. He was taken to the ho eatment. She came to know that Prag y consuming the same liquor. She a Singh @ Sukhi had an altercation wi stion of supplying bad quality of l y settled. She alleged that the death sumption of liquor mixed with some the present appellant and co-accused S After registration of FIR, investigatio led that by consuming some liquor, si nd co-accused Sukhwinder Singh The appellant suffered disclosure stat e spurious liquor. At his instance, 03 bottles were recovered. Other co Act, 1989 at Police Station Dirba, r grant of regular bail as filed by the s registered on the basis of the abli Rani on 20.03.2024, alleging urchased liquor on 19.03.2024 from hwinder Singh @ Sukhi, and had a co-villager and Bhola Singh. did not wake up in the morning and the hospital but had died during the t Pragat Singh and Bhola Singh had She alleged that the appellant and ion with her husband few days back y of liquor, though the same was death of her husband had occurred some poisonous substance at the used Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukhi. stigation proceedings were initiated. six more persons had died. The ingh @ Sukhi were arrested on re statement admitting the factum of ce, 03 bottles of spurious liquor and er co-accused were also arrested irba, y the the ging from had ingh. and g the had and back was urred t the ated. The on m of r and ested AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-2354-202 subsequently. Inv the co-accused is He had filed an ap the Court of Lea 18.10.2024. 4. It is a order is not sustai this case on total connection with a commission of of attracted against h trial will take co served by his furth under the provisio reason for denying that case. With released on bail. 5. Per c against the appella spurious liquor w The liquor was su the 03 victims, w consuming the sa 2025 (O&M) 3 y. Investigation now stands complete sed is facing trial for the commission an application for grant of regular bai f Learned Additional Sessions Judg It is argued by learned counsel for th sustainable in the eyes of law as he totally baseless allegations. He is with any gang dealing with the spurio of offence punishable under Section ainst him at all. He is in custody for a ke considerable time to conclude. is further incarceration. His involvem rovisions of Section 61 of Excise Act enying benefit of bail to him. He has With these broad submissions, it is Per contra, learned State counsel ha appellant are quite serious in nature, uor which was manufactured in con was supplied by the appellant and co which had caused their death. 0 the same liquor. The appellant is mpleted and the appellant alongwith ission of aforementioned offences. lar bail which has been dismissed by s Judge, Sangrur vide order dated l for the appellant that the impugned as he has been falsely implicated in He is a poor labourer and had no spurious liquor. The ingredients for Section 3 of SC & ST Act are not for a period of about 02 years. The ude. No useful purpose would be volvement in another case registered se Act cannot be considered to be a e has already undergone sentence in it is urged that he deserves to be nsel has argued that the allegations as he was involved in supply of connivance with the co-accused. nd co-accused Sukhwinder Singh to ath. 07 more persons have died by ant is part and parcel of criminal with nces. d by ated gned in d no s for not The d be tered be a ce in o be tions ly of used. gh to d by inal AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-2354-202 conspiracy. For t were put at stake conscious possessi reason for allowin infirmity in the im deserve to be allow 6. This C for both the parties 7. The a supplied spurious lives of 10 persons settled proposition that the trial is l incarceration are n the offence allege observations made Chenna Boyanna and State throug 280(SC). Keeping appellant, the qua attendant facts, th release of the app these circumstanc 2025 (O&M) 4 For the purpose of earning huge pro t stake. Recovery of spurious liquo ossession. His prolonged incarceratio llowing his appeal. It is further argue the impugned order and thus it is str e allowed. This Court has heard the rival submis parties at considerable length. The appellant in conspiracy with the urious and poisonous liquor to poor r ersons. There are serious allegations osition of law is that mere prolonged l is likely to take time by itself or n are not sufficient grounds for enlarg alleged is serious. Reference in th s made in Parmod Kumar Saxena V nna Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Ma rough CBI Vs. Amaramani Tripat eeping in view the gravity of the alle he quantum of sentence which the c cts, this Court is of the opinion tha he appellant on bail. The learned tri stances had dismissed his prayer fo ge profits, the lives of poor persons liquor has been effected from his eration cannot be considered to be a r argued that there is no illegality or t is stressed that the appeal does not ubmissions made by learned counsel ith the co-accused is alleged to have poor rustic persons that claimed the ations against the appellant. The well longed period of custody or the fact self or coupled with the period of enlarging an accused on bail, when in this context can be had to the na Vs. UOI, 2008(63) ACC (SC), f Maharashtra, (2007) 1 SCC, 242 ripathi, 2005(4) RCR (Criminal) he allegations as levelled against the the conviction may entail and the on that no ground is made out for ed trial Court after considering all ayer for grant of bail. There is no rsons his be a ty or s not unsel have d the well fact d of hen the , 42 al) t the the t for g all s no AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRA-S-2354-202 illegality or infirm to allow the appea 8. Since any, is rendered in 10.03.2026 Amit Sharma

2025 (O&M) 5 infirmity in the impugned order. As su appeal. Accordingly, the same is dism Since the main appeal has been dism ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasone 
 

. As such, this Court finds no reason s dismissed. n dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE
asoned:- Yes/No
ason if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.