Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1231 (PNJ)

State of Haryana v. Parveen Kumar @ Vicky

2012-09-18

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: (Oral) - The present petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for cancellation of regular bail granted to the respondent-accused by this Court vide order dated 27.7.2012, in case FIR No.10 dated 26.1.2012, registered under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State supplied the copy of the complaint addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Panchkula dated 11.9.2012, relevant extract of FIR No.37 dated 26.6.2008, copy of news items published in ‘The Tribune’ and ‘Hindustan Times’ with regard to the complaint, which are taken on record as Marks ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C (colly)’. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that the respondent-accused procured the bail order dated 27.7.2012, by misrepresentation and concealment of the material facts to this Court. In fact, he was convicted and sentenced in FIR No.37 dated 26.2.2008, registered under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, by the learned trial Court and appeal against the conviction in the said FIR is pending adjudication in the Court being CRA No. 796 SB of 2011. He further submits that wrong averments with regard to the recovery of contraband being non-commercial were made. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that all the facts are duly reflected in petition as supplied by the respondent-accused. However, he admits that the respondent-accused was convicted in FIR No.37 dated 26.2.2008, registered at Police Station Zirakpur and his appeal is pending before this Court, which was not brought to his notice at the time of moving the bail petition. He further submits that State itself in its reply filed before the learned Sessions Court, has mentioned that the respondent-accused is involved only in one case and was acquitted in that case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused material placed on record. 6. The bail was primarily granted on the ground that the quantity of contraband recovered was not commercial quantity, that no charge-sheet was laid in spite of the incarceration of the respondent-accused since 26.1.2012 and that no criminal case was pending against the respondent-accused as on that date. 7. 6. The bail was primarily granted on the ground that the quantity of contraband recovered was not commercial quantity, that no charge-sheet was laid in spite of the incarceration of the respondent-accused since 26.1.2012 and that no criminal case was pending against the respondent-accused as on that date. 7. It is now well established that the order dated 27.7.2012, vide which the respondent-accused was admitted to regular bail, was obtained after concealment of material facts. Therefore, this petition for cancellation of bail is allowed, the order dated 27.7.2012 is recalled, the bail application CRM No.M 19152 of 2012 is dismissed. Bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the respondent-accused are ordered to be cancelled. It is further directed that the respondent-accused be arrested and taken into custody forthwith. 8. Before parting with the case, it is placed on record that this Court is unable to reconcile with complaint moved by one Hakim Rai and two news items dated 13.9.2012 published in “The Tribune” and “Hindustan Times”, in which it has been stated that it was on misrepresentation of facts before the High Court, against the payment of Rs.37 lacs, the accused was granted bail. 9. Even if there is a smallest fraction of truth in the allegations as published in the newspapers and as pointed out by the learned State counsel and published in the newspapers ‘The Tribune’ and ‘Hindustan Times’ dated 13.9.2012, then it is a very grave situation. If not addressed effectively and allowed to go unanswered, the same would definitely have an adverse effect to the extent that it has potential to erode the faith of common man in the Investigating Agency, and would damage the very foundation of justice delivery system. This cannot be allowed to happen. In order to uphold the faith of the common man in the system and to answer the exigency of the situation, effective steps deserve to be devised and taken to prevent the miscarriage of justice, so that the system is preserved. The investigating agency is under obligation to act in a free and fair manner, so that the liberty of an honest citizen is not jeopardized and a dishonest person does not escape rigor of law. 10. In the fact situation, the misuse of process of the Court is fully established. The investigating agency is under obligation to act in a free and fair manner, so that the liberty of an honest citizen is not jeopardized and a dishonest person does not escape rigor of law. 10. In the fact situation, the misuse of process of the Court is fully established. The respondent-accused has secured a favourable order by misrepresentation and concealment of facts, which ultimately culminated into passing an order, which ought not to have been passed if true facts had been supplied by the respondent-accused. Means are as important as ends. 11. In the present case, the means used are foul to achieve unholy object. This Court cannot be a mute spectator to the situation as emanates from the facts that have come to light during the course of hearing. This Court is under an Oath to take all the remedial steps to frustrate the efforts made by the miscreants like the respondent-accused and to ensure that the law is not misused or abused. The remedial measurers are essential to keep the purity and sanctity of the fountain of justice free from any pollution. Non action by the Court may result into irreparable loss to the Majesty of justice. 12. The matter came to notice of the Court when the bail applications of the co-accused were listed on 10.9.2012. Thereafter, this publication was made in the newspapers. The allegation of payment of Rs.37 lacs is against some persons including the police officials, who submitted the false information to the court and concealed true facts. 13. The learned State counsel informs that an inquiry has already been marked to the Station House Officer, Sector 14, Panchkula, who is of the Rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused would also submit at this stage that an enquiry is warranted in this case. But the Court feels that it is too late in the day for the learned Senior Counsel to come out with such a suggestion. 15. The enquiry relates to a very sensitive matter wherein, the involvement of some police officials, working at the same station is suspected. Entrustment of such enquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of Police under whom the other police officials are serving would not meet the ends of justice. 15. The enquiry relates to a very sensitive matter wherein, the involvement of some police officials, working at the same station is suspected. Entrustment of such enquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of Police under whom the other police officials are serving would not meet the ends of justice. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the involvement of the police officials, the Court feels that the enquiry / investigation should be entrusted only to a premier investigating agency of the Country. Therefore, with a view to reach truth and to keep the fountain of justice totally unsullied and also to ensure that the offenders should not be allowed to go scot-free, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 of the Constitution of India marks this case to Central Bureau of Investigation for preliminary enquiry at the first instance, register a case, if prima facie case is made out and file final report as early as possible. A Status Report be submitted by the CBI in three months from the date of receipt of the file from the State. The State shall hand over the entire file relating to this subject matter to the CBI forthwith. The Registry shall list case against immediately on receipt of Status Report by the CBI. ---------0.B.S.0------------