IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.1292 of 2005 Date of Decision : March 06, 2009 Sukhwinder @ Rajwinder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Balwinder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 in person with Mr. S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate Respondent No. 2 in person with Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3. T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral) The petitioner, along with a few others, was named as accused in FIR No. 126 dated 15.12.2004 registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar under Sections 406/420 IPC. Apprehending her arrest, the petitioner moved Crl. Misc. No. M-7261 of 2005 before this Court, which came up for hearing on 4.2.2005, when notice of motion was issued and she was granted ad interim concession of C.O.C.P. No.1292 of 2005 -2- anticipatory bail. On July 12, 2005, at the time of hearing of the aforementioned petition of the petitioner, learned State counsel, after obtaining instructions from ASI Tara Chand, informed the Court that the petitioner had joined the investigation, although she was not fully cooperating inasmuch as the amount of Rs. seven lakhs, which she and others had taken from the complainant in the case for sending him abroad, was yet to be recovered. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court disposed of the petition by making order dated 4.2.2005 as absolute and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 18.7.2008 at 10.00 A.M. The case of the petitioner is that despite having been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court, she was called to the Police Station by ASI Balwinder Singh for 13.9.2005 for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, while accompained by Shri Sarup Lal, Municipal Councillor of the area, she appeared before ASI Balwinder Singh on 13.9.2005 at 9.00 A.M. However, ASI Balwinder Singh stated that the bail application of the petitioner stood rejected by the High Court. The petitioner and Shri Sarup Lal, Municipal Councillor showed the certified copy of the order dated 12.7.2005, whereby the concession of anticipatory bail had been confirmed by the High Court. Instead of showing any respect to the order dated 12.7.2005 passed by the High Court, ASI Balwinder Singh arrested the petitioner and at that time Inspector Sarbjit Rai, SHO, Police Station Sadar Kartarpur was present. C.O.C.P. No.1292 of 2005 -3- The petitioner was produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate for police remand and the petitioner, accordingly, remanded to police custody till 15.9.2004. According to the petitioner, she had even informed the learned Ilaqa Magistrate about the grant of anticipatory bail to her by the High Court but at that time, as she was in police custody, two days police remand was granted by the learned Magistrate in routine. During her police remand, ASI Balwinder Singh put a chain in her feet despite the fact that the lady police official told ASI Balwinder Singh that the petitioner was having small child with her, who had to be breast fed, but ASI Balwinder Singh refused to remove the iron chain from her feet. On 15.9.2005, the petitioner was again produced before the Ilaqa Magistrate, when she was remanded to judicial custody till 29.9.2005. The petitioner then applied for the grant of regular bail, which was granted to her on 23.9.2005. According to the petitioner, the aforementioned conduct of ASI Balwinder Singh, who was the Investigating Officer of the case and Inspector Sarbjit Rai, who was Station House Officer of the Police Station amounted to wilfull and intentional disobedience of the order passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail to her, therefore, they be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. In his reply, ASI Balwinder Singh-respondent No. 1 stated that on 12.7.2005, ASI Tara Chand of Police Station Kartarpur was the Investigating Officer of the case and he attended this Court when the order was passed on the application of the petitioner for the grant of C.O.C.P. No.1292 of 2005 -4- anticipatory bail. Subsequently, the complete investigation of the case was taken up by ASI Balwinder Singh himself on 9.9.2005 after joining duty in the Police Station Kartarpur on 1.9.2005. On 13.9.2005, the petitioner was produced by Shri Sarup Lal, Municipal Councillor, Kartarpur before him and he, accordingly, arrested the petitioner in the case. After being remanded to police custody, she remained in Police Station upto 15.9.2005 and thereafter she was sent to judicial custody from where she was bailed out on 23.9.2005. According to respondent No. 1, it was never brought to his notice that the petitioner had been granted anticipatory bail by the High Court. Moreover the order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner was not on the police file. Even when the petitioner had been remanded to judicial custody and she had applied for the grant of regular bail she had mentioned in para 10 of the application that her bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood dismissed by the Court of Sessions as well as by the High Court. Pleading that the bail order was never brought to his notice by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 prayed for dropping the proceedings against him. He, however, stated that he has since retired from service on 31.1.2006. Inspector Sarbjit Rai-respondent No. 2, also filed his separate reply, wherein he stated that the investigation of FIR No. 126 dated 15.12.2004 was entrusted to ASI Tara Chand. Subsequently, the investigation was taken over by ASI Balwinder Singh. Mangat Ram and C.O.C.P. No.1292 of 2005 -5- Tarsem Lal, co-accused of the petitioner, were arrested by ASI Balwinder Singh on 12.9.2005 and on the following day, i.e. 13.9.2005, the petitioner was produced by Shri Sarup Lal, Municipal Councillor before ASI Balwinder Singh and she was taken into custody in this regard and an entry was duly incorporated in Roznamcha vide DDR No. 48 dated 13.9.2005 at 7.00 A.M. The factum of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by the High Court was never brought to his notice nor that of ASI Balwinder Singh. It was stated that even when the petitioner, after being remanded to judicial custody, applied for the concession of regular bail before the learned Magistrate, she did not highlight this material fact. In fact, specific averment was made by the petitioner in her application that she had earlier moved bail applications under section 438 Cr.P.C. which were dismissed by the Court of Session and also by the High Court. Finally, it was pleaded that there appeared to be some inadvertent communication gap as the factum of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by the High Court was not brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer, which resulted into unwanted arrest of the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 also prayed for dismissal of the contempt petition. It may not be out of place to mention here that the Contempt Petition was initially filed against ASI Balwinder Singh and Sub Inspector Sarbjit Rai, who were impleaded as respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively. Later on, in pursuance of order dated 5.11.2007, on an oral C.O.C.P. No.1292 of 2005 -6- request by the counsel for the petitioner, ASI Tara Chand, who was the Investigating Officer earlier, was impleaded as respondent No. 3. Having been impleaded as a party-respondent, ASI Tara Chand, also filed his reply to the petition. According to him, he was transferred from Police Station Kartarpur to Police Station Maqusudan on 28.7.2005 and, thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred to another Investigating Officer. He, however, admitted the fact that he was present on 12.7.2005 at the time of hearing of the application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner. The order was passed by the Court granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner but a copy of the order was not supplied to him either by the petitioner or by learned State counsel. In fact, the latter orally informed him that the petitioner would come to join the investigation on 18.7.2005. Even when the petitioner came to join the investigation on 18.7.2005, she did not supply copy of the order dated 12.7.2005. She was, however, duly joined in the investigation and a mention made in the zimni. A perusal of order dated 5.11.2007 would show that the stand taken by respondents No. 1 and 2 in their replies regarding the petitioner stating in her application for regular bail that her application for anticipatory bail stood rejected by the Court of Sessions as well as by the High Court, was only on account of an inadvertent mistake made by her when she filed the application before the Ilaqa Magistrate. C.O.C.P. No.1292 of 2005 -7- On August 25, 2008 after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court was satisfied that respondents were required to be tried for contempt of Court. Accordingly, charge was framed against them that on 13.9.2005 in violation of order dated 4.2.2005 read with the order dated 12.7.2005 passed by this Court whereby the petitioner had been admitted to anticipatory bail in FIR No. 126 dated 15.12.2004 registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar, they arrested her and kept her in lockup uptill 23.9.2005, when she was admitted to bail by the trial Court. The contemners were granted liberty to file their affidavits in respect of the charge of contempt. In pursuance thereof, respondents No. 1 and 2 have again filed their affidavits, reiterating the stand which they had taken in their affidavits filed earlier. As there are no direct allegations against respondent No. 3 of having disobeyed the order of the High Court, respondent No. 3 is discharged from the case. On the last date of hearing, respondents No. 1 and 2, who were present in person stated that they plead guilty to the charge framed against them. However, they sought an adjournment to tender unqualified apology. The hearing was, accordingly, adjourned. Today, both respondents No. 1 and 2 have produced their affidavits wherein they had tendered unconditional apology to the Court. In his affidavit, ASI Balwinder Singh has stated that he retired from the C.O.C.P. No.1292 of 2005 -8- Police Department on 31.1.2006. He has two daughters and two sons. One of his daughter is already married while the other three children are still to be married. In his affidavit, Inspector Sarbjit Rai stated that he has a clean and meritorious service record and, as such, has a bright service career. He is young police official having a wife and two daughters. The counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court that an inquiry was conducted by Inquiry Officer, office of Additional Director General of Police, Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh on 4.7.2002, wherein it was stated that a criminal case under appropriate sections of law be registered against some police officials including SI Sarbjit Rai, who was then posted as SHO, Police Station, Adampur, as he was equally responsible, as were the other police officials. In view of the statements made by respondents No. 1 and 2 on the last date of hearing when they pleaded guilty to the charge of contempt framed against them, the Court is now required to proceed to the next stage of the case, i.e., imposition of punishment. Both, ASI Balwinder Singh and Inspector Sarbjit Rai have tendered unconditional apologies. In their affidavits, ASI Balwinder Singh has stated that he has since retired from Police Department, whereas Inspector Sarbjit Rai has mentioned that he is a young police official and his family consists of his wife and two daughters. At the same time, the Court also takes into C.O.C.P. No.1292 of 2005 -9- consideration the fact that registration of a criminal case was suggested by the Inquiry Officer attached with the Additional Director General of Police, Punjab State Human Rights Commission, 4.7.2002 against Inspector Sarabjit Rai, when he was found to be equally responsible as were the other police officials. In view of the above, respondent No. 1 and 2 are held guilty under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Each of them is directed to pay an amount of Rs 2,000/- as fine within one month from today, which shall be deposited in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. In the event of non-payment of fine, the defaulting respondent shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 06, 2009 JUDGE satish