I N T HE HO N’ BL E HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF

P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M _______OF 2023

HAPPY @ HARPREET SINGH …… PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ……. RESPONDENT

INDEX
Sr.No. Particulars Date Page Court
fee

A. Urgent Form 09.10.2023 A

1. Memo Of Party 09.10.2023 01

2. Petition U/S 439 09.10.2023 02-12

Cr.P.C.

3. Annexure P-1 (The 18.08.2023 13-14

Translated Copy of the
FIR No.0068)

4. Annexure P-2 (Copy of 13.09.2023 15-17

the Complaint dated
13.09.2023)

5. Annexure P-3 (Copy of 19.09.2023 18

the PSHRC order)

6. Annexure P-4 (Copy of 19-20

the Representation)

7. An n exu re P-5 22.09.2023 21-26

(Copy of t he bail
order)

8. An n exu re P -6 Copy ------------ 27

 of adhar card

9. Power of Attorney along 22.07.2023 28-29

with Aadhar card

VERNACULAR

9. Annexure P-1 12.03.2023

(Translated Copy of the
FIR No. 198)
10. Annexure P-2 (Copy of 13.09.2023
the Complaint dated
13.09.2023)

11. Annexure P-4 (Copy of

the Representation)

Total Court Fee:-

NOTE:-
1. No Such or Similar: NO
2. Advance copy has been supplied to state – Yes
3. Whether any former MP/MLA is involved - No
4. No any other Fir is registered against the present
petitioner.

Chandigarh
Dated 09.10.2023

(NISHA RANA)(ASHU RANA)(PRIYA SAHOO)(PRIYANKA SHARMA)

PH/4681/2021 PH-8030/2023 PH7980/2023 PH 7893/2023
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
I N T HE HO N’ BL E HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF

P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M _______OF 2023

HAPPY @ HARPREET SINGH …… PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ……. RESPONDENT

Total Court Fee of Rs

Chandigarh
Dated 09.10.2023

(NISHA RANA)(ASHU RANA)(PRIYA SAHOO)(PRIYANKA SHARMA)

PH/4681/2021 PH-8030/2023 PH7980/2023 PH 7893/2023
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
I N T HE HO N’ BL E HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF

P UNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M _______OF 2023

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. Happy @ Harpreet Singh age about 20 Years Old S/o Lt Karnail

Singh R/o House no 100/D Preet Colony Zirakpur SAS Nagar

Mohali Punjab (Mobil.No. Not known and Adar Card No

348211792638)

…..Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Punjab.

….Respondent

Note :- Petitioner has not declared to be proclaimed offender in

any Other Case / FIR – No

Chandigarh
Dated 09.10.2023

(NISHA RANA)(ASHU RANA)(PRIYA SAHOO)(PRIYANKA SHARMA)

PH/4681/2021 PH-8030/2023 PH7980/2023 PH 7893/2023
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
 FIRST PETITION U/S 439 OF CR. P.C. FOR

GRANT OF REGULAR BAIL IN FIR.NO.0068

DATED 18.08.2023 UNDER SECTIONS 323,

324,427,506,148,149 (SECTION 308 ADDED

LATER ON) P.S STATION DHAKOLI, DERA

BASSI, DISTRICT SAS NAGAR MOHALI

PUNJAB AS (ANNEXURE P-1) .IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

AND/OR

IT IS ALSO FURTHER MOST HUMBLY

PRAYED THAT THE ARREST OF THE

PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE STAYED

DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PRESENT

PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

AND/OR

ANY OTHER ORDER AS THE HON’BLE

COURT MAY DEEM FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE

Respectfully Showeth:-

1. That the Petitioner is resident of the above stated Address and

being citizen of India.

2. That the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the above

mentioned case and is quite innocent and having no criminal

background.

3. That the Petitioner is reputed person. Who is falsely implicated

in the FIR NO.0068 DATED 18.08.2023 U/S 323, 324, 427,

506, 148, 149 (SECTION 201, 308 ADDED LATER ON) OF

IPC 1860,, REGISTERED AT POLICE DHAKOLI,

TEHSIL, DERA BASSI, DISTRICT S.A.S NAGAR,

MOHALI (PUNJAB).The copy of the FIR has been annexed

herewith as Annexure P-1.

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

4. That it is pertinent to mention here that as per the above

mentioned FIR lodged by the complainant was based on the

fabricated facts and concocted story it was correct that on 12.30

AM of 16.08.2023 petitioner along with other accused have

quarreled with the Sanjay @ Pola on Highway near Dhakoli

Railway bridge and also Complainant of the above said FIR was

also reached at spot but it was incorrect that petitioner along

with his friends attacked on the complainant and the true fact is

that after reaching on the spot complainant i.e. Highway near

Dhakoli Railway bridge he started scuffle with the petitioner

and his friends, when petitioner and his friends do their self-

defense complainant left his vehicle on spot and fled away and

threatened petitioner and his friends that "Abhi to tum bach

gaye par mujhe sab pta hai tum kha sa aate ho or kha sa
 jaaoge tumhe to vahi dekh lunga" and when on 01.30 AM and

when petitioner along with his friends celebrate their friend

birthday near Ambedkar Colony on 01.30 AM of 16.08.2023 the

complainant along with his friends reached there and attacked

on the petitioner and his friends in which one of them attacked

on the petitioner with Sariya /TMT Bar and petitioner received a

injury and also friends of the petitioner received several injuries

but the petitioner was injured badly and after seeing the deadly

condition of the petitioner they fled away from the spot.

5. That the one of the co-accused received the serious injuries and

he immediately got admitted at CHC Hospital and gave the

complaint regarding all the incident to the PS Station Dhakoli

but they still don’t take any action against the complainant.

Then family of the co-accused filed the complaint before the

Punjab state human right commission vide complaint no

6700/17/2023 titled as “Swaran Kaur VS State of Punjab”. The

honble Bench issue notice to SSP, ADGP, DGP Punjab to file

the status report before the next date of hearing. The copy of the

reminder Cum Complaint and order dated 19.09.2023 are

attached herewith as Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3

Respectively.

6. That the Mother of the petitioner also gave the complaint by

hand to the SSP Mohali regarding conducting of the fair inquiry

and Registering the FIR Against the complainant Divyanshu.

The copy of the complaint are attached herewith as Annexure

P-4.
7. That the Petitioner Filed the Regular Bail vide Bail Application

No 3013/2023 titled as “Happy @ Harpreet Singh Vs state of

Punjab” before the District and Session Judge SAS Nagar

Mohali. But the same has been Dismissed By the Honble Judge

Mohali on dated 22.09.2023. The copy of the Bail Order dated

22.09.2023 are attached herewith as Annexure P-5.

POINT OF ARGUMENTS:-

8. That it is pertinent to mention here that there is unexplained delay

of the 2 Days. The Complainant is admitted at CHC Hospital and

but FIR Register after 2 days whereas CHC Dhakoli and PS

Dhakoli Share the common wall. In the Judgment of Jai Parkas

Sharma Singh (Supra), in Manoj Kumar Sharma and others

versus State of Chattishgarh and another,(2016)9 SCC 1, Hon’ble

Supreme Court has delay in Lodging FIR often results in

embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought and on

account of delay, FIR not only gets berefits of advantages of

spontaneity danger of coloured version or exaggerated story being

introduced in FIR, Creeps in. It is further held that extraordinary

delay in Lodging FIR raises gave doubt about the truthfulness of

allegations made therein.

9. It is very important to mention here that the above said FIR is just a

Counter blast of the Complaint Given by the Co Accused Gurdeep

Singh and the present FIR was got lodged after delay of 2 days

from incident by in-connivance with Police officials because on

17.08.2023 the parents of the Co Accused Gurdeep singh gave a

 written complaint to Police Station Dhakoli but till now neither any

action has been taken against complainant neither FIR has been

lodged against complainant.

10. That the complainant himself is criminal nature person and

indulged in many illegal activities and smuggling of the Drugs.

11. That it is also pertinent to mention here that Mother of the

petitioner is single parent and senior citizen and illiterate lady and

petitioner is also sole bread earner of the family and the adhar card

of the Mother of the petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure P-

6.

12. That this is case of simple assault and Section 308 IPC was

dishonestly incorporated by the police. It is not known how or on

what basis the police incorporated the Sec 308 IPC and without

taking the opinion of the Medical officers Deliberately, Dishonestly

for soft peddling the investigation process of the Present FIR.

13. That it is also pertinent to mention here that mother of the

petitioner undergone from the treatment and excepted petitioner no

one in the house to take care of her petitioner is only sole bread

earner of the family.

14. That bare perusal of the above said FIR (Annexure P-1) clearly

reveals that it is counter blast and no case is made out against the

Petitioner. The same is the result of deliberations, consultations and

confabulations.

15. That it is pertinent to mention here that as per the FIR no recovery

is affected from the petitioner and the petitioner got confined in

District Jail Patiala. That the petitioner is innocent and respected

 citizen of the Village Dhakoli, Tehsil, Dera Bassi, District

S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).

16. That it is pertinent to mention here that all the charges and sections

i.e. 323, 324, 427, 506, 148, 149 (SECTION 201, 308 ADDED

LATER ON) OF IPC 1860, under which petitioner confined in

district jail Patiala is bail able in nature.

17. That It is pertinent to mention here that the private respondents are

criminal in nature and already they are facing trial of many cases

and have influence on police as they are rich and have political

links. Therefore, till today no action has been taken against them by

the police and they are roaming free and giving threat to the

Complainant and her family members either to withdraw the case

or to face the dire consequences.

JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT :-

18. That in the similar nature matter the Supreme Court has decided the

issue in relation to Section 308 and 324 of IPC in its criminal

appellate jurisdiction in the case of Roop Chand @ Lala v. State

(NCT) of Delhi Ordered on:-

“Whether the offence committed by the appellant falls

under the ambit of Section 308 or 324 of the IPC And

Distinction between the Section 308 and 324 of IPC

by Supreme Court”.

Nature of injury as the deciding factor | The three judge

bench of the court observed that injuries as provided under

Section 308 must be such that may probably cause death

 whereas in case of Section 324, injuries may or may not

put one’s life in danger.

Intention as deciding factor| In order to make any a

person liable under Section 308 his ‘intention’ or

knowledge’ to commit such offence need to be proved but

on the other hand under Section 324, causing of hurt

voluntarily by means of instrument for stabbing or cutting

is sufficient. Thus, Section 324 of the IPC creates liability

for willfully inflicting injuries on the other person. The

court held that requirements Section 308 IPC are not

complete, thus, converted the conviction of appellant from

Section 308 to under Section 324 of IPC and

imprisonment is reduced from period of rigorous

imprisonment of three years to period he has

already undergone. That the Petitioner was arrested in the

impugned FIR on 01.09.2023 and present Petitioner is in

custody since his arrest and the total custody of the present

Petitioner is 24 days till today.

In Mahidul Sheikh y. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in

CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53,ILaw Finder

Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed,

[53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with

sureties, the “Court” and the Arresting Officer” should

give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety

bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct

electronic money transfer where such facility Is

 available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The

accused should also have a further option to switch

between the modes. The option lies with the accused to

choose between the sureties and deposits and not with

the Court or the arresting officer.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC

565, (Para 30),

A Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the

bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the

variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal

of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @

Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-

member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons

accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if

the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has

failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or

despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court

records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to

release such person on bail, in the given fact situations.

The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a

subsequent application. The courts can release on bail,

provided the circumstances then prevailing requires,

and a change in the fact situation. In State of

Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 &

3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic

rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail,

except where there are circumstances suggestive of

fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice

or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating

offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the

Applicant who seeks enlargement on bail from the

Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved

is likely to induce the Applicant to avoid the course of

justice and must weigh when considering the question

of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In

Gudikanti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1

SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the

delicate light of the law favors release unless countered

by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In

Prahlad Singh Bhati v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280,

Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to

be the public or the State's immense interest and

similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v State

of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme

Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely

within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter

and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be

exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a

humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail

ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of

compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

 The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation,
tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and
the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by
imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In
Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the
Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the
evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive
conditions.

19. That there is nothing to be recovered from the accused/Petitioner and

the conclusion of the trial will take sufficient long time. As such,

there is no reason to keep the accused/Petitioner behind the bar.

20. That the Petitioner undertakes that he will not influence the

prosecution evidence/ witnesses in any manner. That the Petitioner

shall not misuse the concession of bail. and he is no apprehension of

the absconding or evading trial and Petitioner is ready to abide by all

the terms and conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

21. That the trial of the case would take a considerable time for its final

disposal. That even after the registration of the present FIR, Challan

has not been presented in the present case therefore the present

Petitioner may be ordered to release on bail as per the law settled by

the Apex Court.

22. That the Petitioner has not filed any such or similar application for

regular bail nor there is any bail application pending qua the said FIR

in any of the Ld Session Court, Honble High Court, And Honble

Supreme Court.

23. That the Petitioner is not involved in any other case, as per the

instruction received from the client.

Respectful prayed

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that in

view of the circumstances and submissions
made by the Petitioner above the
Anticipatory Bail may kindly be granted by
this Hon’ble Court in Case/ FIR NO.0068
DATED 18.08.2023 U/S 323, 324, 427, 506, 148, 149
(SECTION 201, 308 ADDED LATER ON) OF IPC 1860,,
REGISTERED AT POLICE DHAKOLI, TEHSIL, DERA
BASSI, DISTRICT S.A.S NAGAR, MOHALI (PUNJAB)
in the interest of justice
And
It is further most humbly prayed that the
arrest of the petitioner may kindly be
stayed during the pendency of the present
petition, in the interest of justice.

And

It is also humbly prayed to exempt the

petitioner from filing the certified and typed
copies of Annexures, in the interest of
justice

Chandigarh
Dated 09.10.2023

(NISHA RANA)(ASHU RANA)(PRIYA SAHOO)(PRIYANKA SHARMA)

PH/4681/2021 PH-8030/2023 PH7980/2023 PH 7893/2023
ADVOCATES
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER