Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1097 (PNJ)

Devinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-09-12

N.C.KHICHI

body2000
Judgment N.C.Khichi, J. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 13950-M of 2000 as well as Crl. Misc. No. 7910-M of 2000 as the same have arisen out of the same FIR. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the facts of the case. 3. The occurrence in this case took place on 227.1993. As a sequel of order dated 15.11.1995 passed by Honble Supreme Court in Crl. W.P. No. 497 of 1995 titled Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, the present case was registered against the petitioners in the year 1997 on the basis of the statement of Chaman Lal, father of Gulshan Kumar deceased. During investigation as per the prosecution case, it was found that the deceased Gulshan Kumar along with others was illegally detained by the police and was then killed in an false encounter. The petitioners are facing trial in respect of the death of Gulshan Kumar. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for about 5 years nobody lodged the report in respect of this case and it was only during investigation by CBI in another case that Chaman Lal made statement in this case. During investigation CBI recorded the statement of Swaran Singh who claimed himself to be detained in police custody at the time of detention of Gulshan Kumar on 22.7.1993. 4. Mr. Cheema, Sr. counsel for the petitioners has referred to an order dated 8.7.1993 of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Copy Annexure P.4, which shows that Swaran Singh PW, the main witness of the prosecution was in fact an accused in another case FIR No. 58 dated 7.7.1993 and was produced before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 8.7.1993 and that he was remanded to judicial custody for 23.7.1993. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, judicial order clearly indicates that Swaran Singh PW who claims to be present in the Police Station with Gulshan Kumar was, in fact, in judicial custody and not in the police station. 5. The prosecution in this Case has relied heavily on the statement of Swaran Singh, who is shown to be in judicial custody on 22.7.1993 as per Annexure P.4. The petitioners are in judicial custody since long. 5. The prosecution in this Case has relied heavily on the statement of Swaran Singh, who is shown to be in judicial custody on 22.7.1993 as per Annexure P.4. The petitioners are in judicial custody since long. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that proceedings in this case have been stayed in Cr1. R. No. 175 of 2000. 6. Thus, keeping in view all the facts and the circumstances as stated above, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the petitioners Devinder Singh, Balbir Singh and Dilbagh Singh are allowed bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of rupees 20,000/- each with two solvent sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of trial court, Patiala. 7. The petitioners, however, shall not enter within the limits of place wherein the alleged offence has been committed. This condition is being imposed to prevent any opportunity to the petitioners to tamper with the evidence. However, if the petitioners have to come to District concerned in connection with official duty, they can seek prior permission from the trial court for that purpose.