Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1006 (PNJ)

Tarlok Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-08-28

AMAR DUTT

body2000
Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. F.I.R. No. 44 dated 16.6.2000 was registered against petitioner-Tarlok Singh, when the S.H.O. Police Station Khemkaran lodged a report to the effect that he along with ASI Barjinder Singh, LC Surinder Singh and Constable Shaib Singh was present at the Bus Stand Khemkaran when from the side of Bhikhiwind Tarlok Singh along with 15 to 16 persons armed with dangs came there and when they were asked to stop by the police officials, Tarlok Singh took out a pistol from his holster and with an intention to kill fired two shots on the police party and after throwing the pistol there ran away from the spot. The pistol was taken into possession along with two empty cartridges and four live cartridges. The S.H.O. had prepared and sent a report under Sections 307, 148, 149, IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act for being registered in Police Station Khemkaran. 2. Anticipatory bail is being sought by Tarlok Singh on the ground that being an elected Chairman of the Block Samiti, Valtoha, he has been opposing Surinder Singh Kairon, who has been responsible for getting him involved in the following six cases :- 1) F.I.R. No. 68/5.9.1999 registered under Sections 323, 325, 506 and 34, IPC (Section 307 added later on). 2) F.I.R. No. 10 of 2000 registered on 17.1.2000 under Sections 324, 342, 506 and 34, IPC. 3) Another F.I.R. under Section 307 already registered against the petitioner and his son in which the petitioner was granted bail by the learned lower Court. 4) F.I.R. No. 14/24.1.2000 under Sections 61-1-14 of the Excise Act registered at P.S. Khemkaran. 5) F.I.R. No. 68/23.4.2000 under Sections 379, 327, 324, 427, 326, 34, 148 and 149, IPC registered at P.S. Bhikhiwind. 6) F.I.R. No. 46/52000 under Sections 452, 353, 332, 506, 186, 148, 149, IPC and 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act and 132 of Representation of People Act, 1951 registered at Police Station Khemkaran. 3. He further states that as the present case has been registered because the police was not able to arrest him in the aforesaid cases and as no recovery is to be effected from him, therefore, he should be granted anticipatory bail. 4. 3. He further states that as the present case has been registered because the police was not able to arrest him in the aforesaid cases and as no recovery is to be effected from him, therefore, he should be granted anticipatory bail. 4. The prayer was contested on the ground that the petitioner has a criminal background and apart from the above, the following cases have been listed :- a) Case F.I.R. No. 10 dated 12.1.1970 under Sections 307, 326, 34, IPC. (Converted into 302 IPC PS Valtoha) and the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment on 13.7.1971. b) Case F.I.R. No. 337 dated 24.9.1983 under Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Police Station B Division, Amritsar. c) Case F.I.R. No. 94 dated 19.5.1984 under Sections 411, 414, IPC, P.S. Khemkaran. d) Case F.I.R. No. 48 dated 29.2.1985 under Sections 25, 54 and 59 Arms Act, P.S. Khemkaran. e) Case F.I.R. No. 333 dated 24.9.1993 under Sections 307, 382, 353, 186, IPC P.S. B Division, Amritsar. f) Case F.I.R. No. 48 dated 20.6.1994 under Sections 336, 353, 148, 149 IPC, P.S. Patti. g) Complaint case 9/94 under Sections 420, 467, 465, IPC, P.S. Khemkaran. h) Case F.I.R. No. 7 dated 12.2.1995 under Sections 332, 353, 506, 34, IPC, P.S. Khemkaran. i) Case F.I.R. No. 30 dated 4.7.1995 under Sections 342, 506, 148, 149, IPC, P.S. Khemkaran. j) Case F.I.R. No. 50 dated 1.12.1995 under Sections 379, 471, 411, 420, 467, 468 IPC, P.S. Khemkaran. k) Case F.I.R. No. 8 dated 31.1.1997 under Sections 336, IPC, 25/54/59 Arms Act, P.S. Khemkaran. l) Case F.I.R. No. 44 dated 16.6.2000 under Sections 307, 148, 149, IPC, 25, 54, 59 Arms Act, P.S. Khemkaran. 5. The petitioner is politically well connected and has got arms licence both from Amritsar as well as from Batala. The assertions regarding Surinder Singh Kairon having any animosity towards him is being denied and it is prayed that the petition for anticipatory bail should be dismissed. 6. Having heard Shri J.S. Gill, appearing for the petitioner, Shri N.D.S. Mann, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Shri Bipan Ghai, appearing for Shri Surinder Singh Kairon, I find that according to the State the petitioner has been responsible for firing two shots at a police party and thereafter having run away after throwing the pistol at the spot. 6. Having heard Shri J.S. Gill, appearing for the petitioner, Shri N.D.S. Mann, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and Shri Bipan Ghai, appearing for Shri Surinder Singh Kairon, I find that according to the State the petitioner has been responsible for firing two shots at a police party and thereafter having run away after throwing the pistol at the spot. Shri Gill initially tried to argue that Colt Company had not manufactured any pistol but on behalf of the State my attention was drawn to the W.H.B. Smith Classic Book of Pistols and Revolvers by Joseph E. Smith, in which at page 494, it is mentioned by the Colt Company was manufacturing .45 Government (Model 0.45) pistol). Faced with this situation, Shri Gill has not pressed the submission that the revolver has been foisted upon his client. From the stand of the State, it is clear that though the petitioner may be a Chairman of the Block Samiti yet in addition to this public office he possesses antecedents which prove his criminal propensities. In this view of the matter, since in none of the cases which have been registered against him, the petitioner has been able to bring on record material which would indicate that they were planted upon him by Shri Surinder Singh Kairon it would not be possible for this Court to rely upon a bare assertion about the petitioner having been involved in the present case by the police only with a view to harass him at the behest of Shri Surinder Singh Kairon. Since the petitioner along with 15/16 other persons is alleged to have attacked police officials and no headway is likely to be made in the investigation if the petitioner is armed with an order granting him anticipatory bail, I feel that there is no merit in this petition, which is to be dismissed. The apprehension of the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the police would use third degree methods cannot be inferred without any concrete evidence being available on the record as has been held in State v. Anil Sharma, 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under :- "The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders." 7. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is dismissed.