CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 28147 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 04, 2011 Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case registered by Central Bureau of Investigation for offences under Sections 302, 120-B/34 IPC. The main ground to seek the concession of bail is that the petitioner is in custody since 2.12.2002. The prolonged custody of the petitioner may prima-facie sound to be a reason enough to consider the grant of bail to him but closer scrutiny of the case would show that this is not one of those routine cases, which CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 28147 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: generally come before the Court. The delay in this case is primarily due to the involvement of very highly placed head of a religious sect who has been proceeded against after investigation conducted by Central Bureau of Investigation upon a direction issued by this Court. In this case, the primary concern has to be to ensure a fair trial, which can seriously be prejudiced because of the influence of the accused involved in the case. Main accused is Baba Ram Rahim, head of Dera Sirsa. Though the incident is stated to be of the year 2002 but this murder is closely linked to the association of the deceased with the Dera. Earlier investigation in this case was conducted by Haryana Police and for supplementary investigation, the case was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation and it had to file different challan at different stages of investigation. The third challan in this case was submitted on 30.7.2007. Some investigations are still stated to be in progress. The petitioner had earlier sought bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. That prayer was declined and ultimately the petitioner had even approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After withdrawing the SLP, the petitioner has now started a fresh round by moving the trial Court for grant of bail on merits. Before doing so, the petitioner had earlier filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition before this Court, which, however, was not held maintainable in view of the CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 28147 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: earlier order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, declining the prayer for grant of bail. Against this order, Special Leave Petition was filed, which was later withdrawn. As on date, prosecution has already examined 27 witnesses out of 75 witnesses. As conceded before the Court, the Trial Court is now conducting a day to day proceedings. The submission that the petitioner was implicated in this case on the basis of supplementary statement, would not mean much as this statement was also recorded on 24.11.2002. Because of the highly placed persons involved, the Haryana Police, at that stage, apparently did not conduct all that thorough investigation, which has even necessitated the transfer of this investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation. In fact, there is an evidence on record that one Sabdil had threatened the deceased 15/20 days prior to his murder. The submission that the said statement has been falsified by the subsequent FIR registered by Central Bureau of Investigation would mean that this Court is being asked to assess the merits on the basis of value and worth of the evidence and appreciate the same to grant bail. It may not be appropriate at this stage to express any view in regard to worth of evidence as that may prejudice the case of either side. The effect of other pleas raised by the counsel that CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 28147 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: the petitioner being known to father of the deceased could have easily been named by him in the FIR would more appropriately be seen by the Trial Court. Whether to believe or not to believe a witness would be the job of the Trial Court and not of this Court while considering the plea of bail. The delay in this case has primarily been due to the tactics adopted by the defence and the accused persons and for that no advantage can accrue to any of the accused. This is not a normal routine case, where such consideration would be material. The main accused is levelled with allegations of murder, rape and is free and has been allowed the concession of anticipatory bail. Despite earlier undertaking given before this Court, no proper action has been taken by the investigating agency to seek cancellation of bail of the Dera Head. Since day to day trial is now being conducted, it would not be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail as fair trial is already becoming a casualty because of the influence of the accused persons who are already enlarged on bail. The prayer for bail is accordingly declined and the petition is accordingly dismissed. October 04, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE