Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 629 (PNJ)

Sabdil v. State Of Haryana

2006-02-22

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment 1. The petitioner Sabdil has filed the present petition under section 439 Crpc for his release on bail in case FIR No.312 dated july 10,2002 registered under Sections 302,102-B IPC with Police station Sadar Thanesar. 2. At the outset, it may be noticed that an earlier bail application filed by the petitioner being Crl. Misc. No.25847-M of 2004 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated December 8, 2004. Another bail application being Crl. Misc. No.19082-M of 2005 was got dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated July 8, 2005. FIR in question was registered on the statement made by joginder Singh son of Amar Singh on July 10,2002. The aforesaid fir has been appended as Annexure P.1 with the present petition. Joginder Singh had stated that his son Ranjit Singh was killed by four persons who had emerged from the sugar cane field and after commiting the crime had run away. Initially, investigation was conducted by the Haryana Police as well as the CID, Crime branch, Haryana. A challan was presented by the prosecution with the trial Judge on February 26, 2003. The present petitioner was shown to have been involved in the commission of crime. On presentation of the challan, the matter was committed to the Sessions judge for trial. Formal charges were framed against the petitioner. It is, thus, clear from the perusal of the aforesaid facts that initially the challan was presented within a period of 90 days from the date of arrest of the applicant-petitioner i. e. from December 2, 2002. It is also apparent from the record of the case that after the presentation of challan, trial commenced before the trial Court and twenty two prosecution witnesses were examined. At that stage, an application was moved by Joginder Singh, father of the deceased Ranjit Singh, before this Court for handing over the investigation to CBI. Vide an order dated November 10,2003, the matter was handed over to CBI for further investigation and also to find out the role of various other persons who might have been involved in the commission of offence remaining behind the scene. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by the CBI. It further appears from the record that the matter was taken before HON BLE Supreme Court of India in SLP No.144 of 2004 by the present petitioner and some other persons. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by the CBI. It further appears from the record that the matter was taken before HON BLE Supreme Court of India in SLP No.144 of 2004 by the present petitioner and some other persons. The order passed by this Court for handing over the investigation to CBI was stayed vide order dated January 23, 2004 passed by the Apex Court. 3. In these circumstances, CBI could not investigate the matter any further. Thereafter vide order dated October 29,2004, the aforesaid interim stay order was vacated by the HON BLE Supreme court of India. On vacation of the aforesaid order, the CBI started reinvestigating the matter. 4. It is also conceded position between the parties that CBI after conducting the part of investigation has submitted supplementary challan on November 26,2005 before the trial Judge. In the aforesaid supplementary challan also the CBI has found the applicant-petitioner to be involved in the commission of offence having caused murder of Ranjit Singh. 5. I have heard Shri D. S. Pheruman, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner, Shri Rajan Gupta, the learned counsel for the CBI and Shri D. S. Nalwa, the learned Deputy advocate General appearing for the State of Haryana and have also gone through the record of the case. Shri D. S. Pheruman, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner has vehemently raised three arguments. Firstly, it has been argued that the FIR was recorded on the statement made by Shri Joginder Singh, father of the deceased and in the aforesaid statement, the name of the present petitioner has not been mentioned. It has been specifically pointed out that although Joginder singh had suspected the involvement of two other persons, namely, ram Kumar and Raj Singh but had not named the petitioner at all. Secondly, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of the provisions of Sec.167 Crpc, inasmuch as, he was initially arrested on December 2, 2002, whereas, on its own showing CBI had presented the challan on November 26, 2005. The learned Counsel states that the petitioner is entitled to bail on this short ground alone. The learned Counsel states that the petitioner is entitled to bail on this short ground alone. Lastly, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the investigation conducted by CBI also does not connect the petitioner with the commission of offence, inasmuch as, as per their own showing the bullets were sent to the Forensic Laboratory and it had been opined by the Forensic Laboratory that the bullets in question which had been sent for comparison to the Forensic laboratory could not match with the bullets which had been sent for comparison, having been fired with the revolver issued to the applicant-petitioner. 6. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel but find myself unable to agree with the same. Firstly, non-mentioning of the name in the statement made by Joginder Singh, on the basis of which the FIR in question was registered, is totally irrelevant, inasmuch as, the aforesaid joginder Singh had very truthfully stated that four persons had caused the murder of his son and he could identify them, if brought before him. In these circumstances, the statement made by Joginder Singh cannot be held to be absolving the petitioner in any manner. Second, the argument raised by the learned counsel is also devoid of any merit. The petitioner was arrested on December 2, 2002. At that point of time, the investigation was being conducted by Haryana Police and CID, Crime Branch of Haryana Police. After investigation, the challan was presented before the trial Judge on february 26,2003. The presentation of the aforesaid challan was within the period visualised under Sec.167 Crpc. The petitioner, as such, was not entitled to any concession because of the lapse of the time. The trial commenced after the formal charges were framed. Thereafter on November 10,2003, this Court directed the CBI to conduct the investigation. The investigation conducted by the CBI is being monitored by a Division Bench of this Court. In these circumstances, the CBI also presented a challan on November 26, 2005 before the trial Judge. It has also been noticed above that earlier thereto for a period of ten months stay order operated. The challan presented by CBI also fixes the responsibility of the petitioner for causing death of Ranjit Singh. Challan presented by CBI is nothing else but a supplementary challan. It has also been noticed above that earlier thereto for a period of ten months stay order operated. The challan presented by CBI also fixes the responsibility of the petitioner for causing death of Ranjit Singh. Challan presented by CBI is nothing else but a supplementary challan. The presentation of the supplementary challan by the CBI cannot be taken to have made available the benefit of section 167 Crpc to the petitioner in any manner. The petitioner cannot be heard to claim that challan against him was presented for the first time on November 26, 2005 by the CBI. 7. The third argument raised by the learned counsel is also devoid of any merit. In the reply filed by CBI, it has been specifically stated that a bullet had been recovered from body of the deceased which had been fired from.455 revolver. Another bullet was recovered from the revolver issued to the applicant-petitioner which had been sent for comparison. The aforesaid Forensic laboratory opined that the bullet was so mutilated that it could not have sufficient identifiable markings on it but all the same the laboratory had not ruled out that the said weapon may have been used in the commission of offence. 8. In my considered opinion, prima facie the involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence is made out. The details of the evidence and the Forensic Laboratory report shall be the matter which shall be gone into by the learned trial Judge at the appropriate stage. 9. No other point has been urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that there is no merit in the present petition. The petitioner is not entitled to bail. Dismissed. 10. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that any observations made by this Court shall not influence the trial Judge while examining the merits of the controversy during trial.