Manager of Sidhu Moosewala Denied Anticipatory Bail In Vicky Middukhera Murder Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on July, 18 declined to grant anticipatory bail to slain Punjabi singer Sidhu Moosewala’s manager Shagun Preet Singh who is accused of being part of conspiracy to murder of Vicky Middukhera on the ground that there existed material that suggested the involvement of the petitioner.

The matter pertained to the allegations of conspiring with others to get sharpshooters, make arrangements for their stay and provide conveyance to the assailants, who, on Aug 7, 2021, allegedly at the instance of Singh fired multiple shots on Middukhera at Mohali, Punjab, causing his death. An FIR at the Mataur District Police Station, SAS Nagar, Punjab was registered against Singh under Sections 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Sections 120-B and 473 IPC added later on).

The petitioner submitted in his bail application that he had no criminal antecedents. However, the Court observed in its order that, “In relation to the petitioner, the investigation revealed that accused Anil Lath, Sajjan alias Bholu, and Ajay alias Sunny, along with Sombir, who was an associate of Lucky Patial, had a meeting with the petitioner Shagun Preet Singh at a Gurudwara Sohana Sahib, Mohali, and the petitioner entrusted them with the task of killing Vicky Middukhera.”

Justice Anoop Chitkara, while noting the prima facie involvement of the Petitioner, further stated that, “The petitioner informed the contract killers that Vicky Middukhera visited a gym in the morning. The petitioner made arrangements for their stay and food at Jalvayu Vihar, Kharar. He also made Anil Lath talk with Lucky Patial through the Signal app and showed them the photograph of Vicky Middukhera on mobile. The following morning, at around 5 AM, the petitioner picked them up from Jalvayu Vihar and went to Sunny Enclave market, where they got the number plates of the i20 car replaced with the fabricated plates.”

Senior Advocate Vinod Ghai, representing the petitioner, contended that Singh never absconded from India and had gone to Australia to meet his friends. The further submission on behalf of the petitioner was that he had no role in any gang and had no motive for killing any person, including the deceased Vicky Middukhera. 

After considering the arguments, the Court observed that, “the prima facie legally admissible evidence collected by the investigating agency pointing out Shagun Preet Singh's involvement emerges from CCTV footage and through witnesses Parth Prashar and Ranjodh Singh.”

The Court cited Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22, a judgment of the Supreme Court, which held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

The Court drew the strength of its refusal to grant bail from its conclusion that a perusal of the status report established that the prosecution had collected sufficient evidence pointing out a prima facie case against the petitioner.