Gurmeet Singh Alias Sabba vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenge orders from the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, which dismissed bail applications for eight appellants. These appellants were implicated in FIR No. 42 dated 13.05.2025, registered at Police Station Majitha, District Amritsar Rural. The FIR was lodged following the deaths of ten individuals after consuming spurious liquor. The investigation revealed the involvement of multiple individuals in the preparation and distribution of this liquor, including the procurement of methanol. The appellants were arrested between May 13, 2025, and May 20, 2025. Some appellants had recoveries made from them, while others had no recovery attributed to them. The challan (charge sheet) has been presented, and the investigation is substantially complete.

Held

The Court allowed the appeals and granted bail to the appellants. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the incident involving multiple deaths due to spurious liquor but emphasized the need to examine the role attributed to each appellant individually. It was noted that no recovery of methanol or any poisonous substance was effected from the possession of the present appellants. Their implication was primarily based on disclosure statements and the alleged chain of distribution. The Court found it significant that two co-accused, Ravinder Kumar Jain and Rishabh Jain, who were allegedly connected with the procurement of methanol, had already been granted bail by the High Court, making the claim of parity for the present appellants deserving of consideration. Furthermore, the investigation was substantially completed, the challan presented, and the appellants had been in custody for a considerable period, with the trial likely to take time. Consequently, considering the nature of allegations, the role attributed, the absence of recovery, and the principle of parity, the Court concluded that the appellants had made out a case for bail. The appellants were ordered to be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds. The Court explicitly stated that these observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and that the Trial Court should decide based on the complete evidence. The Court also reserved the right for the prosecution to move for recalling the bail order if fresh evidence emerges regarding the appellants' direct or indirect involvement in causing death.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellants are entitled to bail given their alleged involvement in the preparation and distribution of spurious liquor that led to multiple deaths? 2. Whether the principle of parity applies to the appellants, considering that co-accused allegedly involved in procuring methanol have already been granted bail? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellants' counsel argued that their implication is primarily based on disclosure statements and the alleged chain of distribution, not direct involvement in the preparation of spurious liquor or the deaths. They contended that the essential ingredients for the stringent offences alleged are not made out against the present appellants. Furthermore, they highlighted that no recovery of methanol was effected from the appellants, and the investigation is substantially completed. They also invoked the principle of parity, citing the bail granted to co-accused Ravinder Kumar Jain and Rishabh Jain, who were allegedly involved in procuring methanol. Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel opposed the appeals, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations due to the deaths of approximately 35 persons. They contended that the investigation revealed the involvement of multiple persons in the preparation and distribution of the liquor, and the appellants were named during the investigation, thus their role cannot be segregated at this stage. They argued that the implication of the appellants is based on material collected, including disclosure statements, which cannot be disregarded at the bail stage.