Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 April, 2021CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 27.04.2021
Amandeep Singh
……Petitioner
Vs
State of Punjab
…..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
Present:Mr. J.S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, D.A.G., Punjab.
Mr. S.S. Kamboj, Advocate
for the complainant.
****
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
The case was taken up for hearing through video
conferencing.
CRM No.12246 & 12078 of 2021
[1]. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the
same are allowed. Accompanying documents are taken on
record, subject to all just exceptions.
1 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:33 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 2
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M)
[2]. Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.47 dated 20.02.2020, registered
under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Sections 25/30 of the Arms Act
at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala.
[3]. The FIR was registered at the instance of complainant-
Darshan Singh with the allegations that his youngest son
Simranjit Singh was working as Special Contingent in Electricity
Board, Head Office, Patiala. He often used to go to play
volleyball with his friend Amrik Singh, who was also working in
PSPCL. On 19.02.2020 at about 6.00 P.M., son of the
complainant had gone on his motorcycle for playing volleyball.
He did not return till late night. The complainant along with his
son Sukhjit Singh went to search Simranjit Singh in volleyball
ground. When they went ahead of Mata Gujri College, they saw
the motorcycle of Simranjit Singh was lying fallen on the main
road and Simranjit Singh was also lying fallen down at a short
distance. His friend Amrik Singh was also lying fallen down at a
short distance. Both of them had gun shots in their heads. Blood
was oozing out from the head of Simanjit Singh and from the
head and abdomen of Amrik Singh. Both had died and empty
cartridges of 12 bore rifle were lying there. FIR was lodged
against unidentified persons.
2 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 3
[4]. During course of investigation, the Police recorded the
statements of Rajesh Bahadur, Gurdeep Singh Basati, Balkar
Singh son of Darshan Singh and Amandeep Kaur wife of
deceased Amrik Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
[5]. According to the statement of Rajesh Bahadur, he is
running a dhaba in a rented shop for the last about 10 years.
He also runs rehri (cart) for selling momos, where his wife and
daughter-in-law used to sell momos. Children and wife also
used to help him in the dhaba. Persons living in PGs used to
deposit advance money with Rajesh Bahadur in order to take
meals at his dhaba. On 16.02.2020, co-accused Manraj Singh
came to his dhaba along with his father and told him that they
had come recently for living in the PG and they will eat meals
daily. He deposited an amount of Rs.500/- with Rajesh Bahadur.
Two employees of electricity board namely Amrik Singh and
Simranjit Singh often used to come to his dhaba after playing
volleyball and they used to eat eggs etc. On 19.02.2020 at
about 10.00 P.M., Amrik Singh, Simranjit Singh and another boy
came to dhaba and sat on the wooden cot behind rehri of
momos. In the meantime, Manraj Singh and his father
Amandeep Singh also came to dhaba. Father of Manraj Singh
i.e. the petitioner entered inside the dhaba and Manraj Singh
went to momos rehri and wished namaste to the wife of Rajesh
3 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 4
Bahadur by calling her aunty. Amrik Singh objected to the word
aunty and asked him to call her as Bhabhi. Manraj Singh
insisted that he would call her aunty only. They had some
arguments. Manraj Singh started telling his father about the
same, who was sitting inside the dhaba. Thereafter father of
Manraj Singh came out of dhaba and started persuading Amrik
Singh etc. They had a quarrel in which father of Manraj Singh
i.e. the petitioner suffered injuries on his face and blood started
oozing out from his face. Rajesh Bahadur and Gurdeep Singh
Basati separated them from quarreling. Manraj Singh went away
after taking his father along with him. Shoes of Manraj Singh
had fallen there in the street.
[6]. The witness further stated that he closed rehri and
called his family members at the dhaba. Amrik Singh, Simranjit
Singh and Gurdeep Singh Basati sat inside the dhaba and ate
egg bhurji and also consumed cold drinks. Thereafter all the
three moved out. Simranjit Singh started the motorcycle and
Amrik Singh sat behind him. Gurdeep Singh Basati gave money
to Rajesh Bahadur. In the meanwhile, the witness Rajesh
Bahadur heard the noise of firing shots in the street and became
scared and put down the shutter of the shop. Numbers of shots
were fired outside and the witness did not come out due to fear.
When he heard voices of other people in the street, then he saw
4 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 5
that Simranjit Singh and Amrik Singh were lying in the pool of
blood near the motorcycle. The witness became frightened and
went home after closing the dhaba. The statement of the
witness was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on
20.02.2020.
[7]. Statement of Gurdeep Singh Basati was recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2020, wherein he stated
that he used to play volleyball from 7.00 P.M. to 10.00 P.M.
They had arranged lights also. On 19.02.2020, he had gone to
play volleyball at about 6.30 P.M., where Simranjit Singh, Amrik
Singh and others were present in the volleyball ground and
there was strong wind on that day. They could not play till 10.00
P.M. They kept on sitting in the ground and thereafter started
their vehicles for going to their house(s). The witness was on
the motorcycle of Simranjit Singh and Amrik Singh. All the three
reached Nepali dhaba for having some meal. Amrik Singh and
Simranjit Singh sat on the wooden cot behind the momos rehri
run by Nepali outside the dhaba. The witness also stood along
with them near the rehri. In the meanwhile, one young boy along
with one middle aged person came to the dhaba. Middle aged
person went inside the dhaba and the other youth came to rehri
and wished the wife of Nepali by calling her aunty. Amrik Singh
objected to it and asked him to call her Bhabhi, whereupon the
5 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 6
youth insisted in calling her as aunty only. There was some
argument. The youth went inside the dhaba and called his
father. His father came and asked Simranjit Singh and Amrik
Singh that why they were misbehaving with his son. They had a
quarrel. The middle aged person suffered injuries on his face
and blood started oozing out from his mouth. The witness and
the owner of Nepali dhaba separated them from quarreling. The
youth and his father went away from the spot. Shoes of the
youth were lying at the spot as the same were bloodstained. All
the three went inside the dhaba and they came to know that
name of the youth was Manraj Singh. All the three ate egg bhurji
and also consumed cold drinks. Thereafter, Simranjit Singh
started bullet motorcycle and Amrik Singh sat as pillion rider.
[8]. The witness further stated that he gave money to dhaba
owner. In the meantime, Manraj Singh came from opposite side
of dhaba with a gun in his hand. On seeing him, Simranjit Singh
started motorcycle. Manraj Singh fired shot upon Simranjit
Singh and Amrik Singh. Both fell down from the motorcycle.
Manraj Singh started indiscriminate firing. In the meantime,
three persons came on a scooter from the side of liquor vend.
One person alighted from the scooter and came to Manraj
Singh. On hearing fire shots, those scooter borne youths fled
away. The person, who had come after alighting the scooter
6 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 7
was father of Manraj Singh i.e. Amandeep Singh. Manraj Singh
fired number of shots on Simranjit Singh and Amrik Singh.
Father of Manraj Singh asked him to check, so that they may
not escape. Manraj Singh checked with torch of mobile phone
and after finishing them, both went towards 24 number Phatak
along with the weapon. The witness was frightened and he went
home. The witness saw family members of Simranjit Singh
going towards place of occurrence and he thought that they
might have received information regarding the incident. The
witness did not tell anything to them regarding the incident.
[9]. Statement of Amandeep Kaur wife of deceased Amrik
Singh was also recorded to the effect that she was posted
BDPO in Panchayati Raj Department. Her husband Amrik Singh
was serving in Electricity Board. On 19.02.2020, her husband
went along with friend to play volleyball, but did not return till
11/11.30 P.M., then at about 12.00 A.M. in the night, Simranjit
Singh’s father Darshan Singh along with some other persons
came to her house and informed that some unidentified persons
had murdered Simranjit Singh and Amrik Singh near Nepali
dhaba by firing shots. The witness informed her father in this
regard. Father and other relatives came to her house at about
2.00 A.M. After post mortem, her husband was cremated. She
came to know that the boy namely Manraj Singh and his father
7 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 8
had murdered her husband and Simranjit Singh. On 25.02.2020
in the evening, she along with her children was alone at her
house. Two persons came to her house on motorcycle. The
witness thought that some persons have come to express their
grief over the death of her husband. She made them to sit in the
room of her house. The youth was aged 20-21 years and other
person was aged about 45/46 years. They told her that they had
committed big mistake and the whole incident occurred due to
sudden rush of blood and they had no personal enmity with
Amrik Singh and Simranjit Singh. They were ready to financially
help the witness and the family of Simranjit Singh in every
manner. They talked about the compromise. The boy told his
name as Manraj Singh and his father’s name as Amandeep
Singh. The witness was in shock at that time and got panicked.
The witness told them that she would tell them after bhog of
Amrik Singh. Thereafter those persons went away.
[10]. The Police also recorded the statement of Balkar Singh
on 27.02.2020 to the effect that he was working as Halqa
Incharge of Halqa Samana of Aam Aadmi Party. On 26.02.2020,
he was present in his house. Manraj Singh, who had associated
with his party in the last election came to him and stated that he
was to talk with him some important matter in isolation. The
witness made him to sit in the outer room of his house an
8 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 9
enquired from him, whereupon Manraj Singh stated that on
19.02.2020 he and his father had gone to Nepali dhaba where
the occurrence took place. Now his father had gone somewhere
without disclosing to him and police was looking for him. He
requested that the witness should intervene and produce him
before the Police so that he may be saved from the beatings.
The witness told that he would enquire the whole case and talk
about the matter. The witness asked Manraj Singh to meet him
on the next day at 11.00 A.M. Manraj Singh met him at Samana
at given time and the witness enquired about the whole incident.
Manraj Singh admitted his guilt and the witness took Manraj
Singh to produce him before the Police. The Police effected
recovery of .12 bore double barrell gun with ammunition from
Manraj Singh.
[11]. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the
statement of PW-8 Gurdeep Singh Basati submitted that the
witness has made lot of improvements in his statement and he
was successfully confronted with earlier statement made under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submitted that at the time of
arrival of the petitioner at the spot, Amrik Singh and Simranjit
Singh had already died. The witness Gurdeep Singh Basati is
an Advocate and his statement was recorded only after four
days of the occurrence and his presence at the spot was
9 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 10
doubtful. On the issue of calling wife of dhaba owner as bhabhi,
the mindset of Amrik Singh and Simranjit Singh was ventilated.
The deceased gave beatings to the father of petitioner and on
seeing the blood oozing out from face of the petitioner, Manraj
Singh killed Amrik Singh and Simranjit Singh in a rush of blood.
Petitioner appeared only after the occurrence and the witness
has made improvements to allege that they were alive and it
was only on the instigation of the petitioner, both were killed in
order to ensure that they may not be left alive. The insertion
made by the witness in his statement that Manraj Singh asked
Amrik Singh to feel sorry to his father was an improvement
because Amrik Singh was unable to move or speak in any
manner as he has already died. The witness while coming from
place of occurrence saw family members of Simranjit Singh
going towards the place of occurrence, but he did not disclose
anything to them despite knowing them fully. No complaint was
made by the witness to the Police at any point of time and his
statement was recorded only under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that
too after four days of the occurrence.
[12]. Learned counsel further submitted that statements of
Rajesh Bahadur and Gurdeep Singh Basati recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C., would not advance the case of the
prosecution against the petitioner, who was injured at the hands
10 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 11
of the deceased and his alleged presence was shown only after
the death of the deceased at the hands of Manraj Singh.
Gurdeep Singh Basati was confronted and cross-examined
successfully to project a case of improvement from his earlier
version recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
[13]. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements
of Amandeep Kaur and Balkar Singh were recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. and even their statements if made before
the Court would not advance the case of prosecution qua the
complicity of the petitioner. The extra-judicial confession is a
weak type of evidence. The mode of confession to a person with
whom the accused had no relation cannot be relied upon to
convict a person. Learned counsel by relying upon Kala @
Chanderkala vs. State through Inspector of Police, 2016(4)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 141 and Charan Singh vs. State of Punjab,
2007(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 781 submitted that extra-judicial
confession made before a stranger is no confession in the eyes
of law. It was a blind murder and the prosecution has failed to
connect the complicity of the petitioner qua the alleged
occurrence.
[14]. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has
not played any role in the commission of alleged crime, rather
he was victim of attack which was opened by the deceased
11 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 12
resulting in injuries on his face. There was no extra-judicial
confession against the petitioner. No recovery was effected from
him. Petitioner is in judicial custody and he was arrested on
26.06.2020.
[15]. Per contra, learned State counsel duly assisted by
learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail on the
ground that the petitioner played active role in the murder of
Amrik Singh and Simranjit Singh as he had arrived at the last
moment and ensured that both are killed by Manraj Singh.
[16]. In view of material on record, complicity of the petitioner
viz-a-viz. his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence
would remain debatable. Nothing has been recovered from him.
The main allegations are against his son Manraj Singh, who is
in custody.
[17]. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances
of the case at this stage and without adverting to the merits of
the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on
regular bail.
[18]. In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing
adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial
Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.
12 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
CRM-M No.28421 of 2020 (O&M) 13
[19]. Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to
be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.
(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
April 27, 2021 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
13 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 06-06-2021 05:12:34 :::
Comments