Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Punjab & Haryana High Court today dismissed the application for anticipatory bail moved by Sidhu Moosewala’s former manager, Shagun Preet Singh in the 2021 Vicky Middhukhera murder case.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara opined that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to point out a prima facie case against Shagun Preet Singh and his conduct of flying away at the brink of time is suggestive of his attempt to flee from justice.

The Case in Brief:

On 7th August 2021, one Vikramjeet Singh alias Vicky Middhukhera was shot dead in Mohali (Punjab) by the assailants who allegedly fired multiple shots at the deceased while he came out of a property consultant’s office and was approaching his car parked outside. The post-mortem examination of the body confirmed the bullet injuries as the cause of death. An FIR regarding the above incident was registered on the same day with the Mataur Police Station, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab under Sections 302 & 34, IPC and Sections 25 & 27, Arms Act. Subsequently, Sections 120-B & 473, IPC were also added in the FIR.

While the police investigation regarding the above incident was midway, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted on 13th January 2022 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar to carry on the investigation further.

During the investigation, it was revealed that Shagun Preet Singh was the main conspirator behind the assassination of Vicky Middhukhera and that accused Anil Lath, Sajjan alias Bholu and Ajay alias Sunny, along with one Sombir, had a meeting with Shagun Preet Singh at  Gurudwara Sohana Sahib, Mohali, and the latter entrusted them with the task of killing Middhukhera.

Upon apprehension of his arrest on the allegations of conspiring with others to get sharpshooters, making arrangements for their stay and providing conveyance to the assailants, Shagun Preet moved the High Court under Section 438, Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail.

Arguments Put Forth:

Shagun Preet Singh (the petitioner), through his counsel, Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai submitted that he never absconded from India and had gone to Australia to meet his friends. He stated that he had no role in any gang and had no motive for killing any person, including the deceased, Vicky Middhukhera.

It was contended that till 25th April 2022, there was not even a disclosure in the FIR qua the petitioner and it is only on the basis of the seventh disclosure statement that the name of the petitioner was involved which shows that the police were fishing for the evidence.

It was argued that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act demands the discovery of a material thing and not that of the complicity of another person, and the police could not find or collect any such evidence. It was submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would serve no purpose whatsoever and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to him and his family.

On the other hand, the State, through Senior Deputy AG Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, opposed the bail contending that the petitioner (Accused No. 8) was nominated based on the disclosure statement of Ajay alias Sunny dated 4th April 2022, which was recorded in FIR dated 14th February, 2022 under Section 25 of the Arms Act in Police Station Special Cell, New Delhi and therefore, the petitioner was nominated following the law. It was argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to know the other chief pins and gangsters involved in the murder.

The complainant, who is the brother of the deceased, also opposed the bail apprehending threat to his life from the petitioner.

Observations of the Court:

The Court noted that based on the statements of two witnesses, Parth Prashar and Ranjodh Singh, the police collected evidence to establish that on the evening of 6th August 2021, Shagun Preet Singh dropped that assailants at the Jalvayu Vihar flat of one Jatinder Sohal where he parked his Fortuner vehicle and had driven the Swift car. The corroboration was done by obtaining call details and the tower location of the petitioner from the mobile service provider. On August 6 (the same day), Shagun Preet Singh’s mobile phone location was found to be in Gurudwara Sohana Sahib and Jalayu Vihar, and Kharar; and on August 7, again at Jalvayu Vihar and Kharar. The Court observed that this prima facie suggests the presence of Shagun Preet Singh with the four assailants in that area and the proximity of the petitioner.

The Court also took account of Shagun Preet’s conduct of absconding from India just at the nick of time without disclosing any urgency for the same and noted that he had bought the air ticket very close to the flight date and also did not buy a return ticket.

Noting that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and offences involved are heinous, the Court stated that an analysis of the allegations and evidence collected did not warrant the grant of bail.

“A persusal of the status report establishes that the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence pointing out a prima facie case against Shagun Preet Singh. The Petitioner made arrangements for the assailants to stay in a private flat instead of a rest house or a hotel to avoid creating evidence about their presence in the area through identification documents required for a stay; arranging a private car with a fake number, making them travel not in his car but of someone else so that his location and identification does not take place; his mobile phone location, and the spot of crime in the same signal zones of mobile towers, which also covered the areas where the crime took place; the petitioner's conduct of flying away at the brink of time, are the incriminating circumstances pointing towards his involvement and suggestive of his attempt of fleeing from justice and thwarting its course. The crime is exceptionally grave, of immense importance to law and order, and raises serious concerns about an uprising of gangsters in the region. Unfolding this crime is required to get to know the conspiracies being hatched to raise some cause taking advantage of the gang rivalries or in disguise of the gangs. For that, custodial interrogation is the only option that remains on the table,” the Court remarked.

It is pertinent to note that there are claims of an active hand of late Sidhu Moosewala and Shagun Preet Singh in the killing of Vicky Middhukhera in 2021.

Case Title: Shagun Preet Singh v. State of Punjab