Bikramjit Singh @ Bittu vs State Of Punjab on 19 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bikramjit Singh @ Bittu vs State Of Punjab on 19 February, 2024

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022996

                                    Reserved on: 15.02.2024
                                  Pronounced on:19.02.2024
                                                              2024:PHHC: 022996
                                                              . . . . PETITIONER

                                                         . . . . RESPONDENT
Argued by: - Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. Rajeev K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Ayush Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.


By way of this petition filed under Section 439 CrPC,

petitioner prays for his release on regular bail in case FIR No.90 dated

30.08.2023 under Section 336/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act,

1959, registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana.

2.1 FIR was lodged on the complaint of Amarjeet Singh, as per

which, on 29.08.2023, he and his family were sleeping in their house

situated in village Khanpur. At about 04:00 AM, they heard unusual noises,

perceived by them as sounds of bursting of crackers. However, upon

reviewing the CCTV footage from the cameras positioned in front of the

house, complainant observed that a white coloured Brezza car had come,

from which an individual with muffed face had disembarked, who fired

gunshots from his pistol/revolver outside the gate of the complainant’s

house. Another unidentified individual, who remained inside the car, also

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 04:12:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022996

CRM-M-64843-2023 2024:PHHC: 022996

fired 3-4 gunshots from his firearm outside the main gate. FIR was


2.2 During investigation, information was received to the effect

that petitioner, apprehended in another case FIR No.31 dated 11.09.2023

registered at Police Station SSOC, Amritsar, under Sections 25 of the Arms

Act and 120B IPC, had suffered disclosure statement, to have committed

the crime on instructions from one Palwinder Singh @ Pinda on the night

intervening 28/29.08.2023, outside the main gate of the residence of the

complainant at Village Khanpur, PS Dehlon, Ludhiana. On getting this

information, petitioner was nominated in this case. Production warrants

were obtained. He was then apprehended in this case. On interrogation, he

suffered disclosure statement, admitting his involvement to have committed

the crime at the behest of Palwinder Singh @ Pinda and Harjeet Singh (son

of the complainant).

2.3 Police report also reveals that CCTV footage of the alleged

incident, as provided by the complainant, in a pen-drive was perused,

revealing two persons firing gunshots but faces of the two persons were not

visible as the same were deliberately covered. After concluding

investigation, final report under Section 173 CrPC was filed in the Court.

3. Ld. counsel contends that petitioner has been falsely

implicated simply on the basis of disclosure statement, allegedly suffered

by him in the custody, which is inadmissible; that he is in custody for the

last more than 4 months; that trial may take time to conclude and so, he be

granted bail.

4. Ld. State counsel opposed the bail petition by pointing out the

nature of allegations against the petitioner. Ld. State counsel also drawn

Page 2 of 3
2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 04:12:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022996

CRM-M-64843-2023 2024:PHHC: 022996

attention towards the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, who is involved

in as many as 7 other cases, as per details given in the custody certificate.

Prayer is made for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have considered submissions of both the sides and appraised

the record.

6. To the specific query put by this Court to ld. State counsel, he

has responded on the instructions from the Investigating Officer that faces

of the culprits in the CCTV footage are not identifiable. Ld. State counsel

fairly conceded, on instructions from the IO, that face of the petitioner is

not visible in the CCTV footage. It is also conceded that except for the

disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner himself, there is no other

evidence to connect him with the crime.

7. Having noticed the aforesaid circumstances, mere pendency of

other cases against the petitioner or his criminal antecedents, cannot be a

reason to decline bail. As per custody certificate, petitioner is in custody for

the last 4 months and 17 days. Trial may take time to conclude.

8. As such, without commenting anything further on merits of the

case, petition is allowed. Petitioner is admitted to regular bail on his

furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the

Ld. trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and conditions.

19.02.2024 JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes

2. Whether reportable? No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022996
Page 3 of 3
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 04:12:47 :::

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *