Cbi Office, Cgo Complex, New Delhi, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.He was.He is an influential person of the area and is capable of organising huge rallies with a view to prevent the concerned persona not to be witnesses in the case.One of the eyewitness has in fact been threatened or serious consequences in case he attempted to depose against the petitioner.(7) In order to appreciate the submission- of the learned counsel for the respondent, one has to keep in mind the circumstances leading to the registration of the present case.The assassination of late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31-10-84, was an unfortunate incident, but still more unfortunate were the events which took place thereafter, as a result of which a large number of anti-social elements came out of their houses in anger and indulged in incidents of rioting, looting, arson, assault and killing of innocent persons and burning their property throughout India.On first of November, 1984, such like incidents also took place in the locality of Sultanpuri, Delhi.Information of this incident was received at the Police station at about 2.10 p.m. It was recorded in the D.D. Register at serial No. 11-A and the same was handed over to Si Sukhbir Singh for immediate action.Sukhbir Singh went to the spot and made preliminary enquiries.Later on, he sent a Ruqa to the police station for the registration of a case uss 147, 148, 149, 395, 196 Indian Penal Code .Then he recorded the statements of various witnesses who were the target of looting, arson and' assault.The Si collected the MLCs from the hospital and in view of the medical reports, further recommended the inclusion of Sections 307, 324 and 302 Indian Penal Code .(8) On the demand of the victims that competent, responsible and experienced police officers be deputed to investigate these cases, the Government of India transferred the investigation to the Vigilance Department of the Delhi Police.Si Raj Singh was deputed to thoroughly investigate the case.In this petition, affidavits of number of persons were filed who in fact were the sufferers of the riots.This Cwp was finally dismissed.(10) However, keeping in view the persistent demand of the so called voluntary organisation, the Government of India on 26th April, 1985, appointed Mr. Justice Ranganath Misra, sitting Judge of the Supreme Court to thoroughly investigate the happening after the death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi, and to find out, as to whether there was any organized mob violence at the behest of Congress workers and if there was, then suggest ways and means to punish the guilty.The short span of time that intervened would not have permitted scope for any organising to be done.The gloom that had spread and affected the Congressmen in particular would not have permitted any such organisation to be handled.The reaction appears to have come as a flutter and sparked everywhere in a similar pattern."(11) The Commission further concluded that no responsible person in authority of Congress-1 hatched any conspiracy or organized large scale rioting, looting, killing, etc. in various parts of Delhi.In fact, the anti-social elements had taken the lead.The treatment meted out to the officer, of the Cbi who had gone to the residence of the petitioner for search and his arrest on 11-9-90 by Itself is an example of his influence.(2) The investigation of this case where the accused is alleged to have organized a mob in targeted them to murder and burn the houses of a particular community is, at a crucial stage and the petitioner being at large, will certainly hamper the investigation.(3) Most of the witnesses in this case are either widows, destitutes or uprooted persona and they are under the constant threat of the petitioner and his associates.Because of this terror, they are not coming forward to make the statements even though have been shifted to safer places.(4) The Poti-Rosha Committee having found a prima facie case against the petitioner, has recommended the registration and investigation of the case by the Cbi and keeping in view the nature of the offence and the persons involved, anticipatory bail should not have been granted.(5) The prosecution has still to take into possession 6 swords which were found in the house of the petitioner and were not allowed to be taken into custody.During this search, the petitioner has also been found in possession of the documents which in the ordinary course should not have been there; (6) In this case, this court has granted the petitioner a blanket order of bail which is not in accordance with law and is liable to be cancelled.(3) In order to demonstrate the seriousness of the offence, learned Additional Solicitor General referred to the affidavit and the statement of Aawar Kaur which formed the basis of the registration of the case uss 147, 148, 149, 247, 430/34 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and 5 others at police station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi In brief, her case is that at the time of the assassination of the late Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, the petitioner Along with her husband Shri Navin Singh, and children was living in her house No. A-4, Sultanpuri, Delhi.On 1-11-84, while she Along with her other family members was present in her house, she saw thousands of people of the area armed with lathis, dandas, iron-rods and knives, looting the house of Sardars end setting them on tire.This mob was being led by Mp Sajjan Kumar who was instigating them that all male folks be burnt to death and their property be looted.Under that instigation, her husband was dragged out and attacked with a sharp-edged weapon and burnt to death after pouring kerosene oil on him.Thereafter, her house was also burnt.She took refuge in the house of her daughter Film Kaur, who was residing in D-Block Sultanpuri.Late at night, some people came there and removed the burnt dead body of her husband, which till date i not tracesble.Superintendent of Police, Cbi, the search of the house concluded at 8.45 Am, but in the meantime, the petitioner managed to organise a huge crowd, which made it impossible for the officers to leave the premises of the petitioner.During the course of search, the respondent officers have seized few documents and six swords but they could' not be removed on account of the law and order problem created by the petitioner outside his house.By the time the search was concluded, the mob outside the house inflamed, and was raising slogans against the Cbi and in favor of the petitioner.The mob in fact had barred the exit gate which made difficult for them to leave the premises.With the lapse of time, the mob continued to swell and provocative slogans were chanted through a loudspeaker system installed by the mob.The mob then became violent and smashed and damaged the Maruti Jipsi and Ambassador car of the CBI.The search party tried their best to call for reinforcement from the local police but it could not be arranged.In fact the information conveyed to the search party by the high police officials was that it was impossible for the police to come to their rescue without inflicting heavy casualities, which in turn, may also endanger the safety of the search parly.Uutimately, the search party could only be allowed to leave the premises after the anticipatory bail order from the High Court was received and conveyed to the persons waiting outside, on makeshift public address system by the petitioner.(6) The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner is politically a powerful and influential person who can directly or indirectly interfere in the course of investigation.During the investigation he associated responsible persons of the public with a view to enthuse confidence in the mind of the persons who have been subjected to and were the victims of this incident.Statements of large number of witnesses were recorded.As a consequence thereof a large number of persons were arrested.For that demand the representatives of People's Union turn Civil Liberties (hereinafter referred to as PUCL) filed a writ petition in this court.During the commission proceedings, Justice Misra accorded recognition to the Pucl and the Citizens Justice Committee.The members of the said two committees personally went to places of incidents, to the camps where the inmates had been shifted and to various other places where many inmates had taken refuge.They collected many affidavits of the eye-witnesses and of the victims of assault including the next door neighbours of Anwar Kaur.On thorough examination of the affidavits, and other material placed on record, the commission came to the conclusion :- "The news shows in clearest terms that rioting in proper sense had started in a very big way in several parts.of the city on 31st evening and except for killing which came into process from 1st November, 1984, every other form of attack on Sikhs had begun.The massive scale on which the operation had started so soon after the fact of death was circulated is clearly indicative of the fact that it was the spontaneous reaction of the people at large.The Commission recommended new committee be appointed to go through the individual cases of omission of non-registration of cases by the local police.(12) Pursuant to the report of the Justice Ranganath Misra Commission, Delhi Administration by notification of February 21, 1987 constituted a Committee comprising of M. L. Jain.201, and 211 of the Indian Penal Code .The Committee consequently by letter dated 14-10-1987, wrote to the Delhi Administration proposing that the Fir in this regard maybe registered and investigated in accordance with law.While issuing notice, the court restrained the registration of cases upon the direction of the Jain-Banerjee Committee.After hearing the parties at length.This court vide judgment and order dated October 4, 1989 allowed the writ petition.(14) On March 22, 1990, the Delhi Administration appointed another Committee comprising Mr. Justice P. S. Poti, former Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court and Shri P. A. Rosha, a retired officer of the Delhi Police service for the same purpose.The Administrator after due consideration accepted the recommendation and directed the Cbt vide his letter dated 5-9-90, to take further action in accordance with law.Upon the receipt of the said letter, the Cbi on September 7, 1990, registered the Fir in question against 6 accused persons, including the petitioner.Immediately thereafter, the respondent-CBI recorded the statements of three so-called eye-witnesses of the occurrence and on 11th September, 1990, organized a raiding party to search the house of the petitioner and arrest him.(15) In this background, let us examine the.contentions of the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent CBI.(16) The detailed narration of facts' has been given with a view to how that even though the killing of Navin Singh the husband of Anwar Kaur had taken place on 1-11-84, she did not make any report to the police.Before that, she had an ample opportunity to approach not only the police station Sultan Puri for registration of the case involving the petitioner, as is now sought to be made out, but also making a grievance before Ranganath Misra Commission that in spite of her complaint, the local police has not registered the case.Instead on 17-12-84, she had approached the Sho of the police station and moved an application only for the grant of compensation for the loss which she had suffered due to the burning of her house.(17) Thereafter, very respectable, responsible and public Spirited members of the Pucl and Citizens Justice Committee, including Mr. Justice S. M. Sikri, a retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. V. M. Tarkunde.a former Judge of the Bombay High Court, Mi.Soli J. Sorabji, Sr.At that point of time Anwar Kaur was admittedly living in the camp.Even though the statements of neighbours of Anwar Kaur, namely, Dhoan Kaur resident of A-4175, Sultanpuri, Padmini Kaur, A-41164, Ram Kaur of A-41162, and Sumer Singh resident of A-4/129, were recorded but she did not come forward to make any statement.Smt. Anwar Kaur did not make any complaint before the police or before the Ranganath Misra Commission, against the petitioner responsible for the killing of her husband.Even her immediate neighbours who claim to be, the eye-witnesses of the killing on 1st Nov., 1984, in the area of Sultanpuri, and whose statements were recorded at the earliest point of time, did not name the petitioner responsible for holding any meeting or instigating them to kill or burn the houses of Sardars.He was not an unknown person of the area.Witnesses could not have omitted his name, if in fact be was there.This statement does not bear her signature or thumb mark.It has an endorsement of one Shri Atma Singh in whose presence the said statement of Anwar Kaur was recorded.We do not know nor it has been made clear by the Cbi as to who, when.where and whether in fact this supplementary statement was ever recorded.Whatever may be the explanation in my opinion, the delay of 3 years in the filing of the affidavit and the recording of her statement at least is a circumstance for which the benefit must go to the petitioner for the confirmation of his anticipatory bail.No doubt the petitioner was the Member of the Lok Sabha on the date of the alleged incident and has a following.They had an ample opportunity to straightway arrest the petitioner and bring him to the police station.In the meantime, well wishers of the petitioner started collecting at his house, in the normal course as he used to receive the persons of his constituency from 7 A.M. onwards.(24) At this stage, we may note that immediately thereafter the officers of the Cbi filed two FIRs at the local police station.In none of these two FIRs, the petitioner is accused of organizing the mob or making any inflamatory slogans or instigated the crowd to take revenge against the CBI.(25) As regards the recovery of the six swords, from the house of the petitioner, the respondent intentionally did not take them, to avoid any confrontation with the mob.It is stated at the bar that the said six swords have since been handed over to the officers of the CBI.These swords appeared to have been presented to the petitioner as Saropas by the Sikh community in recognition of his services for organising blood donation and rehabilitation camps for the victims of 1984 riots.It is only for that reason that the respondents have not so far registered any case against the petitioner for the illegal custody of the swords.(26) The Cbi raised a lot of hue and cry for the recovery of certain documents alleged to have been found from the house of the petitioner.Those documents in fact formed pan: of the file of the writ petition in Gupta's case.These very documents were the basis of the challenge in the writ petition.Its copies were duly supplied by the State to the counsel for the parties.(28) Against this order of bail, admittedly, the Cbi has not filed an appeal or revision for the cancellation of the bail order.The present petitioner is similarly situated as those of his coaccused.The blanker order of anticipatory bail thus is bound to cause serious interference with the right and duty or the police, to arrest the applicant even if he commits another offence.(30) The argument has only to be mentioned and rejected summarily.The investigating officer then recorded the statement of i'.2 wi'nesses on 8-9-90 and immediately thereafter on 11-9-90, set ovt to arrest the accused persons.As observed earlier, there is no material on record to suggest that the petitioner who has a status in the society, and enjoys good reputation, love and affection from the persons at large, is likely to repeat the offence, abuse the trust placed in him by the court, or avoid the trial.Even otherwise, the CBl does not appear to be serious in interrogating the petitioner.On 27-9-90, when the case was taken up, learned counsel fur the respondent frankly conceded that from the day when the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail, he has not been summoned for interrogation.It was only thereafter that the petitioner was summoned once on 28-9-90, and thereafter no attempt has been made to further interrogative him.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code