Mandeep Singh Alias Bhallo vs State Of Punjab on 3 July, 2026

    0
    4
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Punjab-Haryana High Court

    Mandeep Singh Alias Bhallo vs State Of Punjab on 3 July, 2026

               CRA-S-1420-2026 (O&M)                                                             -1-
    
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                      AT CHANDIGARH
    
    
    
    
               212                                                 CRA-S-1420-2026 (O&M)
                                                                   Date of decision:03.07.2026
    
               Mandeep Singh @ Bhallo                                            ... Appellant
    
                                                      Vs.
    
               State of Punjab and another                                       ... Respondents
    
               CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
    
               Present:            Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
    
                                   Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
    
                                   None for respondent No.2.
    
                                   ...
    
               Manisha Batra, J. (Oral).
    

    1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the

    Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

    SPONSORED

    1989 (for short ‘SC/ST Act’)by the appellant, challenging the order dated

    03.04.2026 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn

    Taran in case arising out of FIR No.69, dated 27.09.2021, registered under

    Sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 336, 452, 295-A, 148, 149 of IPC,

    Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(i)(ii) of the SC/ST Act, at

    Police Station Kacha Pacca, District Tarn Tararn, whereby an application for

    grant of regular as filed by the appellant had been dismissed.

    2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are

    that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got
    HARJEET KAUR
    2026.07.07 17:56
    I attest to the accuracy and
    integrity of this document
    CRA-S-1420-2026 (O&M) -2-

    recorded by complainant – Sukhraj Singh, alleging that on the night of

    27.09.2021, the appellant by forming membership of an unlawful assembly

    with the co-accused and 20-25 persons unknown to the complainant, came to

    him. They were making exhortations and started hurling abuses to him. They

    also proclaimed that they were raising construction of shops in the

    gurudwara premises in which the appellant was the President and declared

    that they would teach him a lesson for stopping to make such constructions.

    Accused Amritpal Singh fired a shot with his double barrel gun and the

    bullet hit on the neck of Hussanpreet Singh, who was standing near the

    complainant. He had fallen down and was rushed to the hospital. The

    assailants in the meanwhile threw stones upon the complainant and his

    companions, who were standing there. Accused Nirbhai Singh and the

    present appellant had even entered the gurudwara premises and pushed the

    complainant, due to which his turban fell down.

    3. After registration of the FIR, investigation proceedings were

    initiated. The appellant was arrested on 28.09.2021. Subsequently, co-

    accused Amritpal Singh and Nirbhai Singh were also arrested. Some persons

    named in the FIR were declared to be innocent. The appellant was released

    on regular bail in pursuance of order passed by the Court of learned

    Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran on 01.12.2021. He absented himself,

    due to which his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State on

    08.07.2024. Proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were initiated against him

    and he was declared a proclaimed person on 12.11.2024. He was arrested on

    07.01.2026 after securing his presence by way of production warrants when

    he was in custody in some other case.

    HARJEET KAUR
    2026.07.07 17:56
    I attest to the accuracy and
    integrity of this document

    CRA-S-1420-2026 (O&M) -3-

    4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that he has been

    falsely implicated in this case. His absence was not intentional but was due

    to the fact that he was not aware about the proceedings pending before the

    learned trial Court. Now he has remained in custody for a period of about 08

    months. The trial will take considerable time to conclude. No specific injury

    has been attributed to him. No useful purpose would be served by his further

    incarceration. It is, therefore, argued that the appeal deserves to be allowed

    and the impugned order dated 03.04.2026 denying bail to him is liable to be

    set aside.

    5. Per contra, learned State counsel, while placing on record

    written response, has argued that the allegations against the appellant are

    serious in nature. He has misused the concession of bail previously granted

    by him. He is a habitual offender being involved in 06 other cases. There are

    chances of his absconding again, if extended benefit of bail. It is, therefore,

    argued that he does not deserve to be extended the benefit of bail.

    6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned

    counsel for the parties.

    7. The appellant had previously remained in custody for a period

    of more than 02 months and now he is in custody for a period of about 06

    months. The trial will obviously take considerable time to conclude. No

    fruitful purpose would be served by his continued detention. The well settled

    proposition of law is that pre-trial incarceration should not be replica of

    post-conviction sentencing and that bail is the rule and jail is in exception.

    Taking into consideration the above discussed facts, this Court is of the

    considered opinion that no useful purpose would be served by detaining him

    HARJEET KAUR
    2026.07.07 17:56
    I attest to the accuracy and
    integrity of this document
    CRA-S-1420-2026 (O&M) -4-

    in custody anymore. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, the

    appeal is accepted and the appellant is ordered to be released on bail subject

    to his furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the extent of two

    sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/CJM concerned. He shall also

    give copy of his Aadhar Card, Passport, if any, PAN Card and details of his

    mobile phone number(s) to the learned trial Court and in case, any change in

    his address or mobile phone number takes place, then he shall inform about

    the same to the learned trial Court in advance. He shall not leave the country

    without prior permission of the Court.

    8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove

    shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

    9. Since the main appeal has been allowed, pending application, if

    any, is rendered infructuous.

    
    
    
                                                                        (MANISHA BATRA)
               03.07.2026                                                   JUDGE
               harjeet
    
                         Whether speaking/reasoned :        Yes/No
                         Whether reportable :               Yes/No
    
    
    
    
    HARJEET KAUR
    2026.07.07 17:56
    I attest to the accuracy and
    integrity of this document
    



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here