Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1191 (PNJ)

Sarwan Singh v. State Of Punjab

2006-03-21

body2006
Judgment 1. The present case stands registered on the basis of the enquiry conducted by Superintendent of Police (Crime), Punjab. The facts in brief are that accused Balwinder Singh son of balwant Singh, Balwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh, Paramjit singh son of Harbhajan Singh, Mangat Singh son of Ishar Singh and Rajan son of Jawala Singh were taken in custody by Gharonda Police in case fir no.50 of 1993 under sections 458,380 IPC. On 28.8.1993, Sarwan singh petitioner who was posted as ASI in Police Station Sohana, obtained the transit remand of all the aforesaid accused from Judicial court at Karnal in case FIR No.28 dated 22.7.1993, registered at police station Sohana under section 379 IPC for theft of scrap and were lodged in Police Station, Sohana. On 29.8.1993, they were produced before sdjm, Kharar and were remanded to police custody upto 30.8.1993, on which date, they were again produced before the concerned court and were again remanded to police custody upto 1.9.1993. On the night intervening 31.8.1993 and 1.9.1993, Sarwan Singh asked MHC Garja singh petitioner to bring all the accused out of the lock-up. Constable hari Krishan petitioner was also on duty in the Police Station. The aforesaid accused were not present in the lock up. In this regard a case fir No.31 dated 1.9.1993 was registered under section 224 IPC at police Station Sohana. Ultimately, on 29.9.1993 accused, Mangat singh, Rajan and Paramjit Singh were shown to have been arrested by kharar police in the aforesaid case but the remaining two accused, namely, Balwinder Singh son of Balwant Singh and Balwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh were declared as proclaimed offenders. 2. Aforesaid Mangat Singh, Pramjit Singh and Rajan were ultimately acquitted in the theft case. Records of Crl. Misc. No.12511-M of 2006 reveal that manjit Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh son of Balwant Singh had knocked the doors of this Court vide Crl. Writ Petition No.1071 of 1996 alleging that her husband had died in illegal custody of the police and therefore, the matter should be inquired into. The said writ petition ultimately stands disposed of by this Court on 19.1.2006, observing thus:- "reply, by way of an affidavit of Rupinder Singh, dsp, Mohali, on behalf of respondent No.1 to 3, filed today in court, is taken on record. The said writ petition ultimately stands disposed of by this Court on 19.1.2006, observing thus:- "reply, by way of an affidavit of Rupinder Singh, dsp, Mohali, on behalf of respondent No.1 to 3, filed today in court, is taken on record. A perusal of the reply reveals that pursuant to a fresh investigation, carried out by the Superintendent of Police, crime Branch, Punjab, Chandigarh, FIR No.30, dated 11.7.2005, U/s 302 of the IPC was registered and later offences, U/s 201/34 of the IPC added. During investigation, Inspector Sarwan Singh A. S. I. Garja Singh, h. C. Harkishan were arrested on 11.1.2006 and produced before the Illaqua Magistrate on 12.1.2006. They are now in judicial custody upto 30.1.2006. 3 In view of the aforementioned reply, no further order need be passed. The present application stands disposed of accordingly. 4. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the matter was investigated by senior police official of Crime Branch in which statements of aforesaid Mangat Singh and Paramjit Singh who were also locked up along with aforesaid Balwinder Singh son of balwant Singh and Balwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh in Police station Sohana are also recorded, reference to which will be made at the relevant stage. 5. I have heard Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate representing ASI Garja Singh (the then Head Constable) and MHC hari krishan (the then Constable), Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate representing inspector Sarwan Singh (the then ASI) of Police Station Sohana and mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. With their assistance, I have gone through the entire records. The police file brought by the official of concerned Police Station has also been perused by me. 6. Mr. Baldev Singh contends that Garja Singh and Hari krishan petitioners have no nexus with the alleged offences as they were not investigating the case of theft. They did not even join ASI Sarwan singh at any stage. Therefore, at the most, Sarwan Singh petitioner can prima facie be said to be responsible for the alleged offence and not the present two petitioners. They did not even join ASI Sarwan singh at any stage. Therefore, at the most, Sarwan Singh petitioner can prima facie be said to be responsible for the alleged offence and not the present two petitioners. He then submits that even otherwise, the inquiry now conducted by the Crime Branch is not fair as both the petitioners were not joined in that inquiry and it is one sided affair and the same could not be made the basis for the registration of the present case for the reason that the earlier departmental inquiry conducted by senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar in October, 1993 had ended in their favour, has not been given any weightage. According to the learned counsel both the petitioners were earlier suspended and after discreet inquiry conducted by Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, they were not held responsible for the incident and were taken back on duty. Arrears of their pay were also ordered to be released. In this regard, the learned counsel relies upon an order Annexure P/1. Strengthening his arguments, Mr. Baldev Singh then submits that the occurrence relates to August, 1993 and the present case has been registered after about 12 years. This inordinate delay in itself is enough to grant regular bail to the petitioners. He otherwise while relying upon the writ petition (Annexure P/3) filed by Manjit Kaur wife of Balwinder singh son of Balwant Singh submits that the present two petitioners are also not arrayed as respondents in the said writ petition and all the allegations are against Sarwan Singh petitioner who at that time was posted as ASI in Police Station Sohana. Along with him, one constable chhajju Ram is also arrayed as respondent. This fact can also be taken in favour of the petitioners. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Baldev Singh prays for the relief sought herein. Arguing for Sarwan Singh petitioner, Mr. Akshay Bhan contends that may be that he was the Investigating Officer of the theft case registered against Balwinder Singh and others and had sought the police remand of all the accused but the fact remains that the accused were locked up in Police Station Sohana of which Garja Singh petitioner the then MHC was the Incharge. He cannot escape from his liability. He cannot escape from his liability. The accused had run away from the said lock up for which a case was also registered under section 224 IPC. Ultimately three accused out of five were also arrested and thereafter Balwinder Singh son of balwant singh and Balwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh were declared as proclaimed offenders. According to Mr. Bhan, the prosecution cannot get out of this aspect of the matter and in case the registration of the aforesaid case under section 224 IPC is an eye wash, then in that eventuality the S. H. O. Of the concerned Police Station being the incharge should have been taken to task. Therefore, the inquiry now conducted by the Crime Branch may be by a senior police official, is without any basis. Even otherwise there is no evidence collected so far to indicate even prima facie that aforesaid two Balwinder Singh had died during the interrogation by Sarwan Singh petitioner, the Investigating officer of the theft case. He, therefore, deserves the concession of regular bail. While opposing the bail application, the learned State counsel submits that the delay in registration of the case is not to be taken as fatal to the prosecution for the reason that the matter has been thoroughly and deeply inquired into and ultimately the S. P. Crime branch (Punjab) has given a finding that Balwinder Singh son of balwant Singh and Balwinder Singh son Darshan Singh had died during the interrogation by the present petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of regular bail. 8. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioners are shifting the responsibility from one to another in order to watch the individual interest. But the conceded position is that Sarwan Singh petitioner was the Investigating Officer of the theft case bearing FIR no.28 dated 22.7.93, registered at Police Station Sohana. The other admitted position is that Garja Singh petitioner as MHC was the incharge of the lock up. So far as Hari Krishan is concerned, he is shown to be linked with the interrogation but the State counsel has not been able to show any relevant document in this regard except that he is indicted by s. P. (Crime ). 9. So far as Hari Krishan is concerned, he is shown to be linked with the interrogation but the State counsel has not been able to show any relevant document in this regard except that he is indicted by s. P. (Crime ). 9. I have gone through the statement of Paramjit Singh and mangat Singh recorded by the senior police official (D. S. P.) on 8.12.2005 during the investigation of the present case. As referred to above, these two persons were also remanded to police custody in the theft case along with Balwinder Singh son of Balwant Singh and balwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh. They state that they were kept in the lock up (Hawalat) and interrogated in the theft case. Balwinder singh son of Balwant Singh had died during interrogation. So far as balwinder Singh son of Darshan Singh is concerned, these two persons do not utter a word that he too died during interrogation. They simply state that he was not produced by the police before the Court. They also stated that they were taken to different Police Stations and ultimately the arrest of three persons was shown in a case registered u/s 224 IPC. 10. They then state that earlier also they had given statements to another senior police official of Crime Branch in the year 2000. The order dated 19.1.2006, passed in Crl. Writ Petition No.1071 of 1996 reveals that some fresh investigation was carried out by Superintendent of Police, crime Branch which culminated into registration of the present case. This shows that this matter was under investigation at different stages in order to ferret out the true facts and ultimately on the enquiry of s. P. (Crime)Punjab, the present case was registered in July, 2005. The aforesaid two persons (Paramjit Singh and Mangat Singh) who were initially booked as accused in the theft case have now turned out to be the star witnesses of the present case. There is no reason to doubt their statements at this stage at least. I, however, show my all constraints to comment upon the registration of FIR No.31 of 1993 under section 224 ipc for the reason that any opinion expressed herein can prejudice the case of either side at the relevant stage of the trial. It is well settled that merits and demerits of the case are not to be discussed while deciding the bail application. It is well settled that merits and demerits of the case are not to be discussed while deciding the bail application. Keeping in view the totality of facts, Sarwan Singh petitioner who was the Investigating Officer of the main case bearing fir No.28 dated 22.7.1993 and Garja Singh petitioner who being incharge of the lock up as MHC of Police Station Sohana, prima facie cannot escape their liability. Taking their case from any angle, it speaks of egregious violation. Therefore, they do not deserve the concession of regular bail. So far as Hari Krishan petitioner is concerned, may be that prima facie he has been indicted by the senior police official (S. P.) of crime Branch in the fresh investigation, still on the basis of the evidence collected so far, in my considered view, his further detention would be un-called for. He, therefore, does deserve the concession of regular bail. Resultantly, Crl. Misc. No.12511-M of 2006 is partly allowed and MHC Hari Krishan son of Dwarka Dass, petitioner no.2 is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bond to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, whereas the instant petition qua ASI Garja Singh petitioner is hereby dismissed. Crl. Misc. No.12976-M of 2006 qua Inspector Sarwan singh petitioner is also dismissed. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly.