Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 Date of decision: 03.12.2008 Avtar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Chandigarh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI with Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for CBI. *** HARBANS LAL, J. JUDGMENT This second petition has been moved by Avtar Singh seeking his regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case FIR No.312 dated 10.7.2002 under Sections 302/120-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra and registered as CBI case RC No.8 (S) 2003/SCB/CHG dated 9.12.2003 at Chandigarh under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC. The facts giving rise to this petition are that FIR No.312 ibid was got registered by Joginder Singh in the following terms: “ I had one son Ranjit Singh, aged about 39 years. My land is situated in front of Dhillon Farm on the back road of village Khanpur Kolian. Today i.e. 10.7.2002, I was irrigating my fields alongwith the labourers when Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -2- Sukhdev Singh son of Inder Singh, caste Jat, of nearby village came to me, with whom I was talking with regard to electricity. Meanwhile at about 5.00 p.m. my son Ranjit Singh came on motorcycle and brought tea as usual for the labourers. After serving tea to the labourers while he was going back to the village on his motorcycle, about one kilometer from me, two young men came from the field of sugarcane and two young men came from the sugarcane field situated on the other side, having pistol in their respective hands and blindly fired at my son on which I and Sukhdev Singh while raising Lalkara ran towards them and all the four boys alongwith their weapons ran towards the GT Road and after sitting in the car, which was parked at the GT Road, fled away towards Pipli. I and Sukhdev Singh asked to bring our Maruti car from the village and took Ranjit Singh from the spot to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. The doctor declared Ranjit Singh dead after examination. I have firm belief that my son Ranjit Singh has been got killed by Ram Kumar, present Sarpanch of Khanpur Kolian, and Raj Singh son of Sehdev Singh Malik, resident of Khanpur Kolian, in connivance with some other persons. I have enmity with them because of the Panchayat elections. These persons had already given threats to me on various occasions that either I should compromise with them or they will see me on first Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -3- available opportunity. Today these two in connivance have got killed my son Ranjit Singh. I and Sukhdev Singh can recognize these four boys if they came before us.” Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to the CID (Crime), Madhuban on 23rd August, 2002. Joginder Singh had disclosed that Ranjit Singh was murdered on account of his having fallen out from Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa against whom anonymous letters were in circulation regarding illegal activities including sexual abuse of female followers. The Dera is alleged to have suspected Ranjit Singh (deceased) to be behind this campaign. It was alleged by Joginder Singh that after the last visit of deceased Ranjit Singh to the Dera on 16th July, 2002, he (Ranjit Singh) had disclosed that he was threatened by Darshan Singh, Manager, Jasbir Singh and Randhi Sahab for circulating such letters. After investigation, Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh were challaned by the police of Police Station, Thanesar on 17th February, 2003. Thereafter, in compliance with the orders dated 10th November, 2003 passed by this Court, the investigation was carried out by the CBI afresh and the first charge-sheet was filed against the accused Krishan Lal, Sabdil Singh and Jasbir Singh, whereafter, another charge-sheet was laid against Avtar Singh petitioner and others. The charge sheet filed by the CBI, naming the petitioner as accused in the case, reads as under; “The case was registered on the orders dated 10.11.2003 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh passed in Crl.Misc.No.26994-M/2002, Crl.Misc.No.7931-M./2003 and Crl.Misc.No.24874- Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -4- M/2003 transferring investigation of FIR No. 312 dated 10.7.2002 of PS Sadar Thanesar, Kurukshetra registered on complaint of Joginder Singh s/o Shri Amar Singh who alleged that on 10.7.2002 he was working in his fields when at about 5.00 PM, four youth having pistols in their hands came to his fields and fired indiscriminately at his son Ranjit Singh. Ranjit Singh was taken to LNJP Hospital Kurukshetra where he was declared dead. Joginder Singh had raised suspicion that Ram Kumar Sarpanch r/o Khanpur Kolian and Raj Singh s/o Sahdev Singh Malik r/o Khanpur Kolian had got his son killed in conspiracy with others as they had dispute with Joginder Singh since the Panchayat elections and had been threatening him. Later, Joginder Singh alleged that his son Ranjit Singh had, in fact, been killed by the followers of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa as they suspected him of having circulated the anonymous letter of sadhvi alleging sexual exploitation of Sadhvis in the Dera. Jasbir Singh, a Dera follower and Constable Sabdil Singh gunman of Chief of the Dera were arrested by the local police. After investigation, the local police filed charge sheets dated 17.2.2003 and 17.7.2003 against the accused Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh. CBI carried out further investigation into the matter as per the orders of the High Court and filed a supplementary charge sheet on Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -5- 26.11.2005 against one more accused person, namely, Krishan Lal which is pending trial in the court of Special Judge, CBI, Ambala. This supplementary chargesheet is being filed in continuation of the previous chargesheets. Further investigation has disclosed that Inder Sain s/o Tek Chand was Manager of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa and was running the Dera. Avtar Singh s/o Gurcharan Singh was also actively handling the affairs of the Dera. Inder Sain, Avtar Singh alongwith Krishan Lal Pradhan, Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh were part of the group which were running the Dera alongwith others. When accused Krishan Lal, Avtar Singh and Inder Sain were subjected to Polygraph test, extensive deceptions were noticed in their statements indicating their involvement in the murder of Ranjit Singh. Accused Krishan Lal was identified to be one of the assailants of Ranjit Singh. Therefore, Krishan Lal was arrested in the case on 31.8.05 and interrogated. By then, Avtar Singh and Inder Sain absconded and could not be traced. Warrants of Arrest were obtained against them and wide publicity was given. They filed anticipatory bail applications which were dismissed by the lower court, Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, they surrendered before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ambala on 6.11.06 and were taken on police remand and interrogated. Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -6- Further investigation has disclosed that on 16.6.2002, Ranjit Singh, who had distanced himself from the Dera, was called to Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, and threatened by accused Avtar Singh, Inder Sain and others to seek apology from Baba Gurmeet Singh for having circulated the anonymous letter and to return to the fold of the Dera. However, when Ranjit Singh did not agree, they told him to be ready to face the consequences. Thereafter, when Ranjit Singh left the Dera, Avtar Singh, Inder Sain hatched a conspiracy alongwith accused Krishan Lal, Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh and others to eliminate Ranjit Singh before he could say anything further against the Dera. Investigation has further disclosed that after his return from Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa on 16.6.2002, Ranjit Singh told his father Joginder Singh and mother Kalavati that he had been threatened by accused Avtar Singh, Inder Sain and others to seek apology from Baba Gurmeet Singh and on his refusal to do so, they had told him to be ready to face the dire consequences. He was very frightened. He told them that if anybody came from the Dera enquiring about the anonymous complaint, they should tell them that they have nothing to do with it. Investigation has further disclosed that in pursuance to the conspiracy hatched by Avtar Singh, Inder Sain, Krishan Lal, Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh and others on Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -7- 16.6.2002, Ranjit Singh was killed by accused Krishan Lal, Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh while he was working in his fields at village Khanpur Kolian, Kurukshetra on 10.7.2002. Accused Avtar Singh, Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh, Inder Sain and Krishan Lal were seen during the night of 10.7.2002, after the murder of Ranjit Singh, at Kashish Restaurant, opposite Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa celebrating the killing of Ranjit Singh, claiming that they had eliminated a traitor. Investigation has further disclosed that both Avtar Singh and Inder Sain absconded to avoid being arrested by the CBI. Further, both of them have declined to undergo Narco Analysis Test to ascertain their involvement in the murder of Ranjit Singh. Their conduct clearly exhibits their complicity in the murder of Ranjit Singh. Circulation of the anonymous complaint of sexual exploitation of sadhvis in the Dera was the motive for the murder of Ranjit Singh and the said allegation is being investigated vide a separate case RC-5(S)/ 2002/SCB/ Chandigarh. The evidence on record has, thus, established that accused Inder Sain, Avtar Singh, Krishan Lal Pradhan, Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh and others hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate Ranjit Singh for his purported Anti-Dera activities and in pursuance thereof Ranjit Singh was killed on 10.07.02 with a .455 bore weapon Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -8- and thereby accused Inder Sain and Avtar Singh committed offences punishable u/s 120-B read with Sections 506, 302 IPC. Both the accused are presently lodged in Central Jail. Ambala. It is prayed that both the accused be summoned and tried in accordance with law alongwith accused Krishan Lal, Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh who are facing trial in this case. Further investigation to ascertain the involvement of other persons in the murder continues.” In reply filed to this petition, it has been inter-alia pleaded that the plea of the accused- petitioner that his name has not been mentioned in the FIR is no ground for bail as the investigation has thoroughly established his involvement in the conspiracy to kill the deceased Ranjit Singh. That the same facts were argued before this Court, when the earlier bail application filed by the accused- petitioner was dismissed. The bail applications of two other co-accused have been dismissed by the trial Court as well as by this Court. Lastly, it has been prayed that the petition be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the second bail application is not to be dismissed simply on the ground that the earlier one was rejected on merits and furthermore, the changed circumstances do not mean some extraordinary changes and each day's confinement, each day's delay and each day's detention of accused should be taken as relevant consideration while Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -9- considering the second application as ruled in re: Mohan Raikwar v. State of M.P., 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 399. He further pressed into service that the co-accused have been released on bail and that being so, by applying the rule of parity, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail in view of the observations rendered in re: Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha v. State of U.P., 1993 Criminal Law Journal 938 as well as Kirpal Singh v. The State of Punjab, 2000(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 626. Besides this, he has raised similar contentions as were raised earlier before this Court while arguing in Criminal Misc. No.40256-M of 2007 filed by this petitioner. Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Special Public Prosecutor, CBI countered these arguments by urging with great eloquence that the bail of the co-accused Sabdil Singh was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.12.2003 passed in Criminal Misc. No.56526-M of 2003 and, thereafter, his bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2006 rendered in Criminal Misc. No.59413-M of 2005 and other bail application moved by him was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.9.2008 rendered in Criminal Misc. No.31573-M of 2007. He further argued that the bail applications moved by the co-accused Jasbir Singh from time to time were also dismissed by this Court vide orders passed in Criminal Misc. No.57185-M of 2003, Criminal Misc. No.37662-M of 2007, Criminal Misc. No.24500-M of 2007. He further added to it that the bail application of Jasbir Singh was also dismissed as withdrawn on 29.10.2004 in SLP (Criminal) 289/2004 filed in the Apex Court. He further pointed out that the anticipatory bail of this very petitioner- Avtar Singh was also dismissed Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -10- by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2006 passed in Criminal Misc.Nos.63954-M and 63956-M bearing caption `Avtar Singh v. State of Haryana and others'. He further canvassed at the bar that in view of the facts and circumstances embodied in the reply, no case is made out for admitting bail to the petitioner. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. When the petitioner alongwith two other co-accused was subjected to polygraph tests, extensive deceptions were noticed in their polygraph examination report indicating their involvement in the murder of Ranjit Singh. The allegations against the petitioner are that he acted as a conspirator. The brain behind the finger that pulls the trigger is the primary accused and not a mere appendage to the accused who pulled the trigger. As alleged by the CBI, the petitioner was non-cooperative during investigation and did not appear even after service of notices upon him and continued absconding and under the forced circumstances, he surrendered in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Ambala when the proceedings under Sections 82 as well as 83 were resorted to. In re: Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav vs. C.B.I. through its Director, (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases 70, the Apex court held that “It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said that there is any absolute rule that the mere fact that the undertrial/accused has undergone a long period of incarceration by itself would entitle him to be enlarged on bail.” It has been further noticed that “While it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty, but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to Crl. Misc.No.M-18427 of 2008 -11- individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not, is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society.” Here in this case, the name of the petitioner came to the fore in the statement made by Khatta Singh under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 22nd June, 2007 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. The facts of the authorities relied upon by Mr. Pheruman on behalf of the petitioner are distinguishable from the one in hand. If the petitioner is admitted to bail, he may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence or deter the remaining prosecution witnesses to depose in the Court against him. In the factual scenario, I do not deem it appropriate to admit bail to the petitioner. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the case preferably within nine months. The Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment to the learned trial Court. December 03, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No