Vicky Middukhera Murder: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Sidhu Moosewala's Manager

Moosewala was shot at least 30 times from an automatic assault rifle while he was driving his SUV.

Thereafter, citing a potential threat to life from gangsters Lawrence Bishnoi and Satwinder Singh alias Goldy Brar, Shagunpreet had moved the High Court with his protection plea. Filing the instant anticipatory bail plea, he had also prayed before the Court he be granted a concession of anticipatory bail in the case

He had said that the persons accused of the attack on the deceased are also interrogated and are behind the bar, still to date, none of the accused in the matter ever said that the petitioner was involved in the attack or plan barring one accused.

In his plea, he had also averred that the police are virtually hunting him and he faces immediate arrest as soon as he even enters his residence hence, and therefore, he be granted anticipatory bail. Now, this very petition has been dismissed by the High Court.

Court's observations 

Perusing the evidence collected by the investigating agency, the Court noted that it was prima facie established that a day before the incident, Shagun Preet Singh (bail applicant) had dropped the assailants at the Jalvayu Vihar flat of one Jatinder Sohal and that his Fortuner vehicle also remained parked at that place.

The Court also took into account his conduct of absconding from India just at the nick of time. The Court observed that the purpose of the visit to Australia was to meet the fraternity, however, he had not disclosed any urgency for the same.

The Court also noted that he 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 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," the Court further remarked as it opined that the petitioner had failed to make a case for bail at the instant stage.

Appearances:

For petitioners: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kanika Ahuja, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Dutta, Advocate Mr. Edward Augustine George, Advocate Mr. Manish Modi, Advocate and Ms. Shrishti Sharma.

For complainants: Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. RS Rai (Senior Advocate), Mr. Paras Talwar, Advocate with Mr. Deepanshu, Mehta, Advocate and Mr. Tushan Rawal, Advocate for the complainant(s).

For State: Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala

Case title - SHAGUN PREET SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 195

Click Here To Read/Download Order