Anticipatory Bail Denied to Harmandeep Singh in Brutal Assault Case Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail citing strong prima facie evidence, including supplementary victim statements and Google location data.
In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Harmandeep Singh alias Harman Singh alias Mundri, who is accused in a brutal assault case that resulted in severe injuries to the victim, Jagdeep Singh. The judgment, delivered by Justice Anoop Chitkara on May 19, 2025, highlights the serious nature of the allegations and the compelling evidence against the petitioner.
The case stems from a violent incident reported on January 31, 2024, when Jagdeep Singh was allegedly attacked by a group of assailants, leading to the amputation of his right leg. The attack occurred near Dera Baba Jogi Peer, Ralla, and involved multiple individuals armed with various weapons, including iron rods, wooden sticks, and sharp objects.
The prosecution's case was strengthened by supplementary statements provided by the victim, who later identified Harmandeep Singh as one of the perpetrators. The High Court found this statement credible, considering the traumatic circumstances under which the victim initially reported the incident.
One of the critical pieces of evidence against Harmandeep Singh was Google location data, which placed him at the crime scene. The court emphasized the admissibility and reliability of such technological evidence under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1873. This stance underscores the judiciary's recognition of modern scientific tools in criminal investigations.
The defense argued that Harmandeep Singh was not present at the scene, citing mobile tower data indicating his presence in a different location at the time of the attack. However, the court dismissed this claim, noting the supplementary victim statement and the lack of scientific evidence challenging the Google location data.
Justice Chitkara, in his judgment, stressed the brutal nature of the crime and the cruelty involved, which formed a basis for denying bail. The court held that granting bail in such cases could pose a significant risk to societal safety and emphasized that cruelty in criminal acts should lead to stringent judicial scrutiny.
The judgment reflects the court's cautious approach in dealing with cases involving heinous crimes and highlights the importance of safeguarding victims' rights while ensuring thorough investigations. It also sets a precedent for the use of advanced technological evidence in legal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Anticipatory bail denied to the petitioner accused of attempt to murder and brutal assault with a stick, based on supplementary statements of the victim and prima facie evidence including Google location data.
Statutory provision(s): Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438; Indian Evidence Act, 1873; Information Technology Act, 2000; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
