Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 12 (PNJ)

Satwinder Singh @ Sanjay Kalsi v. State of Punjab

2000-01-10

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
JUDGMENT K. S. Kumaran, J. - F.I.R. No. 32 dated 8.3.1999 has been registered by Police Station "D" Division, Amritsar under Sections 302, 34 and 392 Indian Penal Code The petitioners application for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for bail. 2. The F.I.R. has been registered on the statement Om Parkash, the father of the deceased-Satish Kumar, wherein he had alleged that on 8.3.1999 at about 8.30 p.m., his son Satish Kumar who was working with him in the jewellery market left for his house in the motorcycle. It has also been alleged that when the complainant reached the street in which his (complainants) house is situated, he found his son lying smeared with blood. According to him, the motorcycle and a blood stained knife were also lying nearby. It is also alleged that Satish Kumar who was taken to the hospital, was declared dead. 3. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. to implicate him directly or even indirectly and that no identification parade was also conducted. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that there is no allegation in the F.I.R., that any article or cash was taken and, therefore, no offence under Section 392 Indian Penal Code is also made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the only ground on which the petitioner is sought to be implicated, is the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner to an unknown person and whose statement was recorded nearly 2 months after the alleged occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the co-accused Munish Kumar has also been granted bail by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner and others had made extra judicial confession before Jaswant which was recorded on 1.5.1999. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner who was armed with a knife, had caused injuries to the deceased. 4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner and others had made extra judicial confession before Jaswant which was recorded on 1.5.1999. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner who was armed with a knife, had caused injuries to the deceased. The learned counsel for the State also contends that the petitioner had made an another extra judicial confession to one Baldev Singh (Sarpanch) which was recorded on 4.5.1999 implicating himself. The learned counsel for the State further contends that in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the petitioner, Rs. 44,000/- in cash, 53.380 grams of gold and 2 gold rings were recovered from the clinic of the petitioner which is situated in his house. According to the learned counsel for the State, one of the rings contained the inscription "Om" being the name of the father of the deceased, while the other contained the initial "S" indicating the name of the deceased Satish Kumar. The learned counsel for the State also contends that the statement of one Jaspal Singh was recorded on 18.3.1999 who has stated that the petitioner and 3 others were talking to each other about the occurrence and their involvement in the same. Pointing out these factors, the learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner was summoned by the CIA Staff, Amritsar on 19.3.1999, interrogated and was let off as nothing was found incriminating. He also contends that the petitioner appeared before Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station "D" Division, Amritsar on 21st and 23rd of March, 1999 where also he was interrogated and let off. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that inspite of this, the police picked up the petitioner on 8.5.1999 and his father Pritam Singh on 10.3.1999 and illegally detained them and, therefore, the petitioners brother Mohinder Pal Singh filed Criminal W.P. No. 555 of 1999 on the file of this Court for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus on 11.5.1999. He also points out that the Warrant Officer who raided the Police Station "D" Division, Amritsar on 12.5.1999 and also the CIA Staff, did not find the detainees there, but when the Warrant Officer was taken to the house of the petitioner, Pritam Singh was found at the house. He also points out that two police constables were standing at the outer door of the house of the petitioner, though they told that they had come to the house of Inspector Baldev Singh Terra, who lived nearby. This report is dated 13.5.1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Cr. W.P. 555 of 1999 was disposed of on 18.5.1999 and on the same day, the petitioner was arrested and the recoveries have been foisted against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the fact that the extra judicial confessions are not true, is evident from the reply filed by the Senior Superintendent of Rolice, Amritsar to the complaint filed by Pritam Singh before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. A copy of this reply has been produced by the petitioner as annexure P-3 which bears the date 11.5.1999. This reply, of course, also bears the date 27.4.1999 and must have been produced before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission on 11.5.1999. In his reply, the S.S.P. has stated that the petitioner appeared before the Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station "D" Division, Amritsar on 21.3.1999 and 23.3.1999 and on both the dates, after thorough investigation, he was let off. He has also stated that the petitioner was never called to police station thereafter and that at present, no case is pending investigation in the said police station against the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this reply was filed before the Punjab State Human Rights commission on 11.5.1999 wherein it is not at all stated that the petitioner had made any extra judicial confession on 24.4.1999 or 25.4.1999 and, therefore, it is clear that the extra judicial confession alleged by the police is not true. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this reply was filed before the Punjab State Human Rights commission on 11.5.1999 wherein it is not at all stated that the petitioner had made any extra judicial confession on 24.4.1999 or 25.4.1999 and, therefore, it is clear that the extra judicial confession alleged by the police is not true. But the learned counsel for the State contends that this reply is dated 27.4.1999, whereas the statements of Jaswant Singh and Baldev Singh were recorded on 1.5.1999 and 4.5.1999, i.e. subsequent to the preparation of reply (annexure P/3) and, therefore, at that time, the police could not have known about the extra judicial confessions and, therefore, their non-mention would not in any way militate against the case of the State. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the reply (annexure P/3) has been presented before the Commission only on 11.5.1999 by which time the police must have known about the extra judicial confession, if it was true. He also points out that though the extra judicial confessions were allegedly made on 24.4.1999 and 25.4.1999, the persons before whom the alleged extra judicial confessions were made, had given their statements only on 1.5.1999 and 4.5.1999, after a long delay, for which also there is no explanation. He also points out that though the police belonging to the said police station were found by the Warrant Officer at the outer door of the house of the petitioner on 12.5.1999, no recovery is alleged to have been made at that time, though the Warrant Officer has pointed out in his report that the articles in his house were lying helter-skelttered. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the very same day, i.e. 18.5.1999, when the Habeas Corpus petition was disposed of, the petitioner was once again arrested and the recoveries have been foisted against him. 7. Therefore, taking into consideration all these factors but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 8. The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Amritsar. Petition allowed.