In CRM-M-27763-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC denies pre-arrest bail to Shagun Preet Singh, manager of late singer Sidhu Moosewala, in connection with murder of Youth Akali Dal leader Vicky Middukhera Justice Anoop Chitkara [18-07-2022]

Read Order: Shagun Preet Singh v. State of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, July 19, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has denied the grant of anticipatory bail to Shagun Preet Singh, the manager of late singer Sidhu Moosewala in connection with the August 2021 murder of the Youth Akali Dal (YAD) leader Vicky Middukhera.

The petitioner’s complicity was prima-facie gathered by the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara from the fact that he 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, arranged a private car with a fake number and made them travel in someone else’s car. The Bench also considered the aspect that his mobile phone location and the spot of crime were in the same signal zones of mobile towers, which also covered the areas where the crime took place as well as the fact that the petitioner flew to Australia at the brink of time.

The petitioner, Shagun Preet Singh, apprehending his arrest in an FIR registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 120-B and 473 IPC added later on), come up before the High court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC] for the grant of anticipatory bail.

The said FIR contained the allegations that the petitioner conspired with others to get sharpshooters and made arrangements for their stay and provided conveyance to the assailants who, on August 7, 2021, at the petitioner’s instance fired multiple shots on Vicky Middukhera at Mohali, Punjab, causing his death. 

Vicky Midhukhera, on the said date, had gone to the office of a property consultant at Sector 71, Mohali and while he was coming out of the said office, he was chased down and shot dead while the assailants. The FIR, in this case, was registered at the instance of the brother of the deceased. 

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner never absconded from India and he went to Australia to meet his friends and that the petitioner had no role in any gang or any motive for killing any person, including the deceased Vicky Middukhera. Further, the Counsel argued that based on the seventh disclosure statement, the petitioner was involved, showing that the police were fishing for the evidence. 

Also, on the law point, the Counsel added that a disclosure statement in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 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. Lastly, the Counsel submitted that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 

After considering the above-stated, the Court observed that prima facie legally admissible evidence collected by the investigating agency pointing out Shagun Preet Singh’s involvement emerged from CCTV footage and through witnesses Parth Prashar and Ranjodh Singh. The Bench observed that two assailants were identifiable in the video recording of the CCTV camera, wherein one of the assailants was seen holding a pistol in his left hand. 

Justice Chitkara further added that the witnesses Parth Prashar and Ranjodh Singh stated that on August 6, 2021, during mid-day, Shagun Preet Singh took the silver colour Swift car of Jatinder Singh Sohal from Sector 91 Mohali and parked his Fortuner vehicle there, after which he called the said Jatinder Singh to make arrangements for the stay of his special guest employed with the IT company.

On the next day, i.e., August 7, 2021, the petitioner returned the Swift car and thus, based on these statements, the police collected evidence to establish that on the evening of August 6, 2021, Shagun Preet Singh dropped the assailants at the Jalvayu Vihar flat of Jatinder Sohal. His Fortuner vehicle also remained parked at that place, and he had driven the swift car. This corroboration was done by obtaining call details and the tower location of the petitioner from the mobile service provider. 

The Court also observed that on August 6, 2021, the petitioner’s mobile phone location was found in Gurudwara Shri Sohana Sahib and Jalvayu Vihar, and Kharar; and on August 07, 2021, again at Jalvayu Vihar and Kharar. 

“This prima facie suggests the presence of Shagun Preet Singh with the four assailants in that area and the proximity of the petitioner”, asserted Justice Chitkara.  

The second set of evidence taken note of by the Court was the petitioner’s conduct of absconding from India just at the nick of time. 

“The purpose of the visit admittedly was to meet the fraternity but he has not disclosed any urgency for the same. Shagun Preet Singh had not purchased the air ticket well in advance but had bought it very close to the flight date. Moreover, he did not buy a return ticket. The complainant made a statement about the involvement of shooters on April 6, 2021, whereas the petitioner took a flight on the previous night. The petitioner did not explain the purpose of his hasty unscheduled travel to Australia, which points out that he has tried to flee from Justice”, the Court held. 

In light of the above, the Court held that on a prima facie analysis of the sets of evidence mentioned above and in the light of the ratio of the judicial precedents mentioned above, the petitioner’s case did not fall in the category of cases where bail ought to be granted. 

In the conclusion, the Court summed up the prima-facie considerations against the petitioner, 

“… 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 it’s course.”

Thus, the Bench held that in light of the fact that the crime was exceptionally grave, of immense importance to law and order, and raised serious concerns about an uprising of gangsters in the region, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was the only option that remained on the table.

The petition was thus dismissed.