Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 539 (PNJ)

Inspector Ram Kumar v. C. B. I.

2002-05-15

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. Petitioners, namely, Inspector Ram Kumar, ASI Mawasi Ram and ASI Dharam Pal, seek quashing of order dated 10.1.2001 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Haryana, Ambala, whereby supplementary challan submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the CBI) in RC No. 16(S)/97-SIU.I, P.S. SPE/CBI/SIC.I, New Delhi, dated 20.7.1997 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 342, 343 and 218, Indian Penal Code, has been committed to the court of Special Judge, CBI, Ambala, and order dated 27.2.2001 passed by the Special Judge who has ordered the challan to be jointly tried along with challan submitted by the CBI against accused, UGC Abdul Hai, Constable Kamal Singh and Dharam Raj @ Sarpanch in relation to the above-mentioned FIR. 2. The facts have to be focussed in brief in order to decide the controversy raised in the petition. 3. Bharat Bhushan Arora, now deceased, was owner of Bharat Furniture Udyog at Faridabad. Kamlesh Kumar was employed to work under him. On 10.9.1996, Bharat Bhushan Arora along with Kamlesh Kumar had left for Delhi on scooter bearing registration No. HR-29-F-1520 to purchase toughened glass-sheets for T.V. show-cases. He had carried with him a cash of Rs. 25,000/- besides possessing one gold chain and two gold rings. He was to return home by midnight on the same day. However, he did not return till 2 A.M. of 11.9.1996 and for that reason, his father Kamal Nain Arora, who is complainant in this case, started search for him. On 11.9.1996 at about 5.30 P.M. the dead-body of Bharat Bhushan Arora along with the scooter was recovered from the bushes located on Suraj Kund-Faridabad Road, at a distance of about 1 K.M. towards Faridabad from Anangpur Chowk. Kamal Nain Arora suspected that due to cash and gold carried by Bharat Bhushan Arora, Kamlesh Kumar with the help of other persons might have killed him. On 16.9.1996, case under Section 302/34 I.P.C. was registered on the basis of a written application submitted by Kamal Nain Arora to Inspector Ram Kumar (petitioner No. 1-accused herein) who was posted as S.H.O. Police Station N.I.T. Faridabad. Inspector Ram Kumar along with his staff visited the spot and recovered the dead-body and scooter of Bharat Bhushan Arora. He carried inquest proceedings. The blood-soaked soil and broken glass of head-light of the scooter, were also taken into possession by him from that place. Inspector Ram Kumar along with his staff visited the spot and recovered the dead-body and scooter of Bharat Bhushan Arora. He carried inquest proceedings. The blood-soaked soil and broken glass of head-light of the scooter, were also taken into possession by him from that place. Thereafter, post-mortem examination was performed on the dead-body. The clothes which was deceased was wearing were also taken into possession by Inspector Ram Kumar. Inspector Ram Kumar showed the arrest of Kamlesh Kumar son of Shiv Nath, resident of village Awadhpur, District Lakhimpur Kheri (U.P.) on 16.9.1986 and also obtained his police remand. After completion of investigation, Inspector Ram Kumar came to the conclusion that the death of Bharat Bhushan Arora had occurred due to injuries suffered by him by a fall on account of slip of the scooter and as such, the allegation of murder could not be substantiated against Kamlesh Kumar and accordingly, he prayed for his discharge and submitted his report to the D.S.P. Headquarters, Faridabad, but the same was not filed in Court. 4. In the meanwhile, Kamal Nain Arora, father of the deceased, suspecting that his son had been murdered, moved to the Government of Haryana for an enquiry. The District Magistrate, Faridabad, as per order dated 20.9.1996 directed a magisterial enquiry to be conducted by A.D.C. Faridabad to find out the cause of death of Bharat Bhushan Arora. The Inquiry Officer after conducting enquiry, came to the conclusion that Bharat Bhushan Arora died of `Asphyxia and after his death, his dead-body had been placed from where it was recovered. Thus, according to him, it was a case of murder and not of an accidental death. The Inquiry-Officer also found that the police could not explain the presence of Kamlesh Kumar in their custody for 15 hours without taking any action. The report was sent to the Home Secretary, Haryana, by the District Magistrate, Faridabad. While forwarding the report, he recommended to the Government to entrust investigation of the case to an agency other than the District Police. Thereafter, Kamal Nain Arora approached the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, seeking an impartial enquiry. The Government of India with the consent of Government of Haryana entrusted the investigation of the case to CBI to find out the cause of death of Bharat Bhushan Arora. The CBI then registered case bearing No. RC-16S(S)/97-SIU.I dated 20.7.1997 under Section 302 IPC. 5. The Government of India with the consent of Government of Haryana entrusted the investigation of the case to CBI to find out the cause of death of Bharat Bhushan Arora. The CBI then registered case bearing No. RC-16S(S)/97-SIU.I dated 20.7.1997 under Section 302 IPC. 5. During the course of investigation conducted by the CBI, it was found that Bharat Bhushan along with his employee Kamlesh Kumar had left his home for Delhi at 8 P.M. on 10.9.1996 on scooter bearing registration No. HR-29-F-1520 in order to the purchase toughened glass-sheets from Arvind Kumar of Kalkaji, New Delhi. At that time, Bharat Bhushan Arora had carried with him cash amount of Rs. 25,000/-, besides possessing two gold rings and a gold chain. Bharat Bhushan Arora and Kamlesh Kumar reached Badarpur Border at about 9 P.M. on that night. Bharat Bhushan Arora went to see his friend Mahender Singh, who had met with an accident a few days ago. Thereafter, Bharat Bhushan Arora and Kamlesh Kumar reached Noida after passing over the Yamuna river. At about 9.30 P.M. they consumed liquor. At about 10.45 P.M. both of them reached the house of Arvind Kumar in Kalkaji, New Delhi and purchased pieces of toughened glass-sheets and made cash payment of Rs. 14,000/- to Arvind Kumar. Both of them left the house of Arvind Kumar at about 11.30 P.M. on scooter No. HR-29-F-1520. Kamlesh Kumar was pillion rider holding the bundle of glass-sheets while the scooter was being driven by Bharat Bhushan Arora. They took Surajkund-Faridabad road via Anangpur. At about 11.30 P.M. while they were two kms. short of Anangpur Chowk, Bharat Bhushan Arora stopped the scooter and parked it in order to urinate. When both of them were about to leave for Faridabad, they were asked to stop by UGC Abdul Hai, Constable Kamal Singh and a private person named Dharam Raj @ Sarpanch who had approached from the opposite direction on a black coloured motor-cycle which was being driven by Dharam Raj. Bharat Bhushan Arora did not stop the scooter and proceeded towards Faridabad. All the three persons while riding the motor-cycle took U-turn and on coming near Bharat Bhushan Arora, Constable Kamal Singh abused him and gave a but blow of his rifle on his head, as a result of which Bharat Bhushan Arora fell on the ground to his left side and became unconscious. All the three persons while riding the motor-cycle took U-turn and on coming near Bharat Bhushan Arora, Constable Kamal Singh abused him and gave a but blow of his rifle on his head, as a result of which Bharat Bhushan Arora fell on the ground to his left side and became unconscious. Kamlesh Kumar also fell on the road and received injuries on his left knee. A tear-mark was also caused to his pant. The above-mentioned three persons came to Bharat Bhushan Arora and lifted him and thereafter, put him in the nearby bushes alongside the road. The scooter was also dumped there. Kamlesh Kumar started crying and begged for to his life. Thereafter, Kamlesh Kumar was taken to Sales Tax barrier at Anangpur Chowk and then shifted to Police Post Suraj Kund on the same night. There Kamlesh Kumar was handed over to Wireless operator Manoj who acted on the instructions of ASI Dharam Pal, Incharge of the Police Post, Suraj Kund. Accordingly, Kamlesh Kumar was detained in the police-post till 3 P.M. of 11.9.1996. Thereafter, he was shifted to Police Post, NIT, Faridabad, by ASI Mawasi Ram who was incharge of Police Post No. 5, NIT Faridabad. Kamlesh Kumar was wrongfully detained at Police Station NIT Faridabad till 16.9.1996 by Inspector Ram Kumar, SHO, Police Station NIT Faridabad. The CBI submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against UGC Abdul Hai, Constable Kamal Singh and Dharam Raj @ Sarpanch, for offence under Sections 120-B, 392, 302/34 I.P.C. In the report filed, it was mentioned that further investigations were continuing in respect of other police officials for fabricating the police record and for illegal detention of Kamlesh Kumar. The case filed was committed by the Special Judge Magistrate, CBI, Haryana, Ambala, on 31.3.1999 to the Special Judge, CBI, Ambala, against the above- mentioned accused. Charges were framed against the said accused and thereafter, seven witnesses of the prosecution were examined. The case filed was committed by the Special Judge Magistrate, CBI, Haryana, Ambala, on 31.3.1999 to the Special Judge, CBI, Ambala, against the above- mentioned accused. Charges were framed against the said accused and thereafter, seven witnesses of the prosecution were examined. At this stage, CBI filed supplementary report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., on 23.9.1999 before the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Haryana, Ambala, against Inspector Ram Kumar, ASI Mawasi Ram and Dharam Raj, containing the allegation that they had entered into a criminal conspiracy on 11.9.1996 to shield UGC Abdul Hai and Constable Kamal Singh from legal punishment and had illegally detained Kamlesh Kumar on the night intervening 10/11.9.1996 and further kept him in illegal detention of Inspector Ram Kumar, SHO PS NIT Faridabad, till his formal arrest was shown in case bearing FIR No. 82/96 registered with Police Station NIT Faridabad. The investigation further revealed that the recovery memo prepared by Inspector Ram Kumar with regard to taking into possession blood-soaked earth contained blood group `A as revealed by the report of C.F.S.L. whereas the blood group of the deceased was `B and in this manner, he had fabricated the blood group of the deceased. Rather the evidence which has come on record is that the blood visible on the face of the deceased appeared to be super- imposed. on the basis of statements of the witnesses recorded, the CBI came to the conclusion that no blood oozing injury or any external or bony injury had been noticed on the body of the deceased Bharat Bhushan Arora whereas Inspector Ram Kumar in conspiracy with ASI Mawasi Ram had taken the stand during investigation conducted by them that it was a case of accident. Inspector Ram Kumar also prepared recovery memo. dated 11.9.1996 in respect of seizure of broken glass pieces of head-light and light-bulb of the scooter No. HR-29-F-1520 belonging to the deceased from the place where the dead-body and scooter were recovered. That recovery was witnessed by ASI Mawasi Ram but factually, the glass-pieces of head-light and light-bulb were not recovered at the place of incident. The investigation by the CBI further showed that the clothes of Bharat Bhushan Arora did not bear blood-stains but Inspector Ram Kumar recorded the presence of blood-stains on his clothes in the inquest proceedings conducted under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the said memo. was signed by ASI Mawasi Ram as a witness. The investigation by the CBI further showed that the clothes of Bharat Bhushan Arora did not bear blood-stains but Inspector Ram Kumar recorded the presence of blood-stains on his clothes in the inquest proceedings conducted under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and the said memo. was signed by ASI Mawasi Ram as a witness. The Medical Officer has also not appended his signatures on the said document. These facts according to the CBI clearly indicate the conspiracy hatched by Inspector Ram Kumar, ASI Mawasi Ram and Dharam Pal to save accused Abdul Hai, Kamal Singh and Dharam Raj from legal punishment. The Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Haryana, Ambala, as per order dated 10.1.2001 committed the case to the court of Special Judge, CBI, Ambala, because the alleged offences under Sections 120-B read with Sections 342, 343 and 218, IPC committed by the petitioners were connected with case bearing No. RC No. 16(S)/97-SIU.1/SIC-I, New Delhi titled as CBI v. Abdul Hai etc. registered under Sections 120-B, 302, 392 and 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C., which already stood committed to the court of the Special Judge and was pending trial in the court of Ms. Anita Chaudhary, Additional Sessions Judge (Designated Special Judge, Ambala), in exercise of the powers vested under Section 323 Cr.P.C. 6. Before the Special Judge, CBI, Ambala, a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioners that supplementary challan submitted by the CBI against them be tried separately and not jointly along with challan submitted by CBI against accused Abdul Hai etc. as the offences alleged against them were not committed during the course of the same transaction. This stand of the petitioners was contested by the CBI primarily on the ground that the petitioners-accused have committed different offences during the course of the same transaction and for that reason, they need to be tried together in view of the provisions contained in Section 223(d) of the Code. In support thereof, it was further submitted that when the challan was filled by the CBI earlier against accused Abdul Hai etc., it was specifically stated that investigation regarding involvement of other police officials was continuing and on completion of investigation, the involvement of the petitioners-accused in the commission of crime for offences mentioned in the report was substantiated. In support thereof, it was further submitted that when the challan was filled by the CBI earlier against accused Abdul Hai etc., it was specifically stated that investigation regarding involvement of other police officials was continuing and on completion of investigation, the involvement of the petitioners-accused in the commission of crime for offences mentioned in the report was substantiated. Vide order dated 27.2.2002, the Special Judge CBI, Ambala, accepted the stand of the CBI and came to the conclusion that during further investigation the CBI had discovered that there was a criminal conspiracy between the first set of accused and the present petitioners and the sole purpose of the conspiracy was to save the first set of the accused. He accordingly directed that the case of the petitioners-accused shall be jointly tried along with the first set of accused, namely, Abdul Hai, Kamal Singh and Dharam Raj against whom challan had already been filed by the CBI. The orders of both the Courts below have been assailed in the present petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record. 8. Challenge to orders dated 10.1.2001 and 27.2.2001 has been made by the counsel representing the petitioners-accused on the following grounds :- (i) That initially, when the challan was filed by the CBI against accused Abdul Hai, Kamal Singh and Dharam Raj in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate CBI, Haryana, Ambala, no permission was obtained from the said Court for further investigation of the case and for that reason, no cognizance could have been taken by the Court on filing of the supplementary challan by the CBI against the petitioners-accused in this case. Reliance in this regard was placed on case Vikas Kumar Gupta v. State of punjab, 2002(2) RCR 12. (ii) That in the supplementary challan filed against the petitioners-accused, they are alleged to have committed offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 342, 343 and 218, Indian Penal Code, which are triable by the court of Special Judicial Magistrate and in this case, 27 prosecution witnesses have been cited by the prosecution while in the earlier challan filed by the CBI against accused Abdul Hai, Kamal Singh and Dharam Raj, they have been indicted for offences under Section 302, 392 and 201/34, Indian Penal Code and in that case, 147 witnesses have been cited. The evidence to be led in both the cases is altogether different and therefore, clubbing of the cases, would cause prejudice to the petitioners-accused. 9. Opposing the submissions made, it was strenuously urged by the counsel for the CBI that at the time when report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against accused Abdul Hai etc. was filed in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate CBI, Haryana, Ambala, it was specifically intimated to the court that investigation against other persons involved in the crime was still continuing and it is not a case where prosecution without notice of the Court has filed supplementary report against the petitioners-accused in this case and for that reason, the Special Judicial Magistrate without any objection either from the side of the petitioners or of its own has taken cognizance of the supplementary challan and ultimately, committed the same to the court of Special Judge, to be tried with the first case which course of action has been rightly upheld by the Special Judge for the reasons stated in her order. It was further contended by the counsel for CBI that observations made in Vikas Kumar Guptas case (supra) do not in any manner advance the cause of the petitioners because in that case, the police under the garb of further investigation had chosen to do reinvestigation without the permission of the Court in terms of the provisions of laid down in Section 178(8) Cr.P.C. and for that reason, supplementary challan filed in that case could not have been taken into consideration by the Judicial Magistrate. Thus, according to the counsel, the circumstances of that case are entirely different than that of the present case. 10. Thus, according to the counsel, the circumstances of that case are entirely different than that of the present case. 10. In order to decide the stands taken by the parties, notice has to be taken, at the fist instance, of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code., which read as under :- "Section 173 : (8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)." 11. It is manifest from the provisions that the police is empowered to conduct further investigation even after the final report has been submitted to the Court, where further evidence, oral or documentary, comes to the notice of the officer-in-charge of the police station. This power has been vested to advance the cause of justice. As already noticed, in this case when the CBI had submitted challan against accused Abdul Hai, Kamal Singh and Dharam Raj in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, they had duly intimated in the report filed that investigation in the case was continuing with regard to involvement of other persons. Therefore, bona-fides of the police in this regard are not open to challenge. Even when the supplementary challan against the petitioners-accused was filed by the CBI in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate and the same was taken cognizance of by the Court, no objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that the report be not accepted as no specific permission for further investigation was obtained in writing from the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate. This case was committed by Special Judicial Magistrate to the Court of Special Judge as per order dated 10.1.2001 wherein directions had been given that this case be tried along with the connected case titled CBI. v. Abdul Hai etc. which was already committed to the court of Special Judge and was pending in the court of Ms. This case was committed by Special Judicial Magistrate to the Court of Special Judge as per order dated 10.1.2001 wherein directions had been given that this case be tried along with the connected case titled CBI. v. Abdul Hai etc. which was already committed to the court of Special Judge and was pending in the court of Ms. Anita Chaudhary, Special Judge CBI, Ambala. The legality of this order was not challenged and for that reason, it has attained finality. Rather the only question agitated on behalf of the petitioners before the Special Judge was that the report submitted by the CBI against them be not tried jointly along with the challan submitted by the CBI against Abdul Hai and others as the offences for which the petitioners-accused have been challenged, do not fall within the ambit of Section 223(d) of the Code. In the given set of circumstances, the objection raised from the side of the petitioners that no permission in writing was obtained from Special Judicial Magistrate for further investigation of the case, as such cannot be entertained. Another circumstance is that the observation made in Vikas Guptas case (supra) on the basis of fact situation, would not help the petitioners-accused. 12. Coming to the main controversy, the question to be decided is whether under the circumstances of the case the Special Judge rightly came to the conclusion on the basis of provisions contained in clauses (a) and (d) of Section 223 of the Code, that the offence committed by the petitioner-accused formed part of one and the same transaction on the test of continuity of action and rightly ordered this case to be tried with the challan submitted by the CBI against the first set of accused which was pending in her Court. While dealing with this aspect, the Special Judge in paras 15 to 17 of her judgment observed as under :- "15. Section 223(d) of the Cr.P.C. permits joint trial of several persons together if they are accused of different offences, committed in the course of same transaction. There is no limit to the number of offences, which can be charged when they come under clause (d) of Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. but they should all form part of one and the same transaction. The main test is continuity of action. There is no limit to the number of offences, which can be charged when they come under clause (d) of Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. but they should all form part of one and the same transaction. The main test is continuity of action. Where there is continuity of purpose, there may be different facts, but those shall be regarded as parts of the same transaction. The test is whether they are related to one another in point so as to constitute one continuous action. The facts of the present case, as have been detailed above, would reveal that in the first challan, which was filed by the CBI, the allegations against these accused were that of murder, robbery and destroying the evidence and also under Section 120-B of the IPC. The prosecution agency in the challan had mentioned that the initial investigations were carried out by some other officers and the place of occurrence had also been shifted and that matter was being investigated. During the investigation, the CBI discovered that there was a criminal conspiracy between the first of accused and the accused who have now been sent up and the sole purpose was to save the first set of accused from legal punishment and all those acts, which followed, were in pursuance to the criminal conspiracy. No doubt, accused Ram Kumar etc. have been sent up to face trial for wrongful confinement and for preparing false documents as well as for having entered into a criminal conspiracy. It would be seen that there was a continuity of purpose and design and each set of accused had committed different acts and those are to be regarded as part of the same transaction. 16. In order to see whether there was a continuity of action, the test is, after the completion of one act, there was nothing more to be done in order to make the thing done from one whole. In the present case, continuity of action continued as after the murder had been committed, the employee of Bharat Bhushan was wrongfully confined and as per the allegations, the record was also manipulated by the Investigating Officer, who were handling the matter. The argument that the first act had been completed and there was gap of time, is not convincing. Moreover, proximity of time is not essential to constitute the act as part of the same transaction. The argument that the first act had been completed and there was gap of time, is not convincing. Moreover, proximity of time is not essential to constitute the act as part of the same transaction. In the present case, it is very clear that there was continuity of action from the start to the finish. It was not necessary for the prosecution to show that all the accused had acted together from the start of finish. Since there was continuity of action, joint trial in the matter would be justified also because there was a conspiracy having a definite object and view. This principle applies where several offences are committed by several persons. 17. A contention had been raised on behalf of the accused that if the joint trial was ordered, the witnesses, already examined by the prosecution, will have to be examined again and it would prejudice the accused. Where a joint trial is ordered and the trial of the first case has already commenced, the position of law is clear and opportunity of cross- examination will have to be given where joint trial is ordered at a stage, when the prosecution had already started examining its witnesses. The position is clear, the witnesses already examined will have to be revealed." 13. A bare examination of the provisions of Section 223 of the Code would show that all the persons falling under any of the seven categories mentioned therein, can be charged and tried together. In the present case, the controversy centres around the applicability of clauses (a) and (d) of Section 223 of the Code, which reads as under :- "223. What persons may be charged jointly. - The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely :- (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction; (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction. (e) to (g) xxx xxx xxx" 14. Under the above-mentioned clauses, the fundamental condition for their applicability is that the person should have been an accused either of the same offence or of different offences, committed in the course of same transaction. (e) to (g) xxx xxx xxx" 14. Under the above-mentioned clauses, the fundamental condition for their applicability is that the person should have been an accused either of the same offence or of different offences, committed in the course of same transaction. Whether the incident form part of the same transaction or not, depends upon the facts of each particular case and these aspects primarily help the Court to invoke the provisions of the above-mentioned clauses. The expression "in the course of same transaction" referred to above, came to be discussed in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemala Pati Ganeswra Rao, AIR 1961 SC 1850, wherein it was observed as under :- "The series of acts which constitute a transaction must or necessity be connected with one another and if some of them stand out independently, they would not form part of the same transaction but would constitute a different transaction or transactions. Therefore, even if the expression "same transaction" alone had been used in Section 235(1), it would mean a transaction consisting either of single act or series of connected acts. The expression "same transaction" occurring in clauses (a), (c) and (d) of Section 239 as well as that occurring in Section 239(5)(i) were to be given same meaning according to the normal rule of construction of the statute." 15. Section 235(1) mentioned in the above case relates to the old Code and corresponds to provisions of Section 223 of the Code. While construing the purpose and purport of expression "same transaction" occurring in clauses (a) and (d) of Section 223, it has to be noticed that generally, it is taken that where there is proximity of time and place or unity of purpose or design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it may be possible to infer that they from part of the same transaction and particularly so where offence of conspiracy is involved. At the same time, it is not necessary that everyone of these elements should co-exist for a transaction to be regarded as the same. If several acts committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design, that would be a strong circumstances to indicate that those facts form part of the same transaction. The connection between the series of acts seems to be an essential ingredient for those acts to form part of the same transaction. 16. If several acts committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design, that would be a strong circumstances to indicate that those facts form part of the same transaction. The connection between the series of acts seems to be an essential ingredient for those acts to form part of the same transaction. 16. Coming to the facts of the present case, the murder of Bharat Bhushan Arora had been committed by accused Abdul Hai, Kamal Singh and Dharam Raj on the night intervening 10/11 September, 1996. These accused apprehended Kamlesh Kumar, an employee of the deceased, who was accompanying him at the time of the incident. During the course of investigation Inspector Ram Kumar with the help of ASI Mawasi Ram and ASI Dharam Pal not only illegally and wrongfully detained Kamlesh Kumar from 10/11 September, 1996 to 16th September, 1996, but also manipulated the records, as has been noticed in detail in the earlier part of this judgment in order to save Abdul Hai, Kamal Singh and Dharam Raj. The object of the conspiracy hatched by the petitioners-accused had a direct bearing with the evidence collected in relation to murder of Bharat Bhushan Arora for which accused Abdul Hai and others had been sent up for trial. Petitioners-accused wanted to save Abdul Hai and others and all these acts were committed as a result of criminal conspiracy and have to be construed as part of the same transaction in relation to the crime for which first challan has been filed. Some of the witnesses in both the cases are common. It is not a case where two different versions would be tried during the course of same trial so as to draw an interference that any embarrassment or prejudice would be caused to two sets of accused. The Special Judge CBI, Ambala, under the circumstances of the case, was fully justified in ordering joint trial of the petitioner-accused with the first set of accused against whom challan was already pending in Court, as stated earlier. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is consequently dismissed.