Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: September 27, 2011 (1) Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 (O&M) Narinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent (2) Criminal Misc.-M No. 15045 of 2011 (O&M) Dalbir Singh alias Mithu .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent (3) Criminal Misc.-M No. 16437 of 2011 (O&M) Simranjit Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent (4) Criminal Misc.-M No. 19192 of 2011 (O&M) Kuldip Singh alias Kala .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [2] (5) Criminal Misc.-M No. 19459 of 2011 (O&M) Sandeep Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent (6) Criminal Misc.-M No. 20599 of 2011 (O&M) Hardeep Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent (7) Criminal Misc.-M No. 20617 of 2011 (O&M) Jaswinder Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent (8) Criminal Misc.-M No. 20734 of 2011 (O&M) Jarnail Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent (9) Criminal Misc.-M No. 20946 of 2011 (O&M) Sarup Singh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [3] CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: S/Shri TPS Tung, Yogesh Goel, Kuljit Singh, K. S. Dhanora, VPS Mithewal, Vaibhav Sehgal and Mrs. J. J. Kaur, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. P. S. Bajwa, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. D. D. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned bunch of petitions, as the same arise out of one FIR No. 22 dated 22.1.2011, registered under Sections 307, 452, 506, 427, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station, Payal, District Ludhiana. In Criminal Misc.-M No. 15045 of 2011 –Dalbir Singh @ Mithu v. State of Punjab and Criminal Misc. –M No. 16437 of 2011— Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, the prayer is for confirmation of the interim bail granted by this court. In Criminal Misc.-M No. 20617 of 2011- Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Criminal Misc.-M No. 20734 of 2011- Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, the prayer is for grant of regular bail. In Criminal Misc.-M No. 19459 of 2011—Sandeep Singh v. State of Punjab, Criminal Misc.-M No. 20599 of 2011- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Criminal Misc.-M No. 20946 of 2011- Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab, the prayer is for grant of pre-arrest bail. In Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 23.5.2011 and Criminal Misc.-M No. 19192 of 2011- Kuldip Singh @ Kala v. State of Punjab, decided on 7.7.2011, this court had issued notice to the petitioners for cancellation of pre-arrest bail already granted by this court. While passing the order on 28.7.2011, the facts noticed by this court, which resulted into registration of the FIR, are extracted below: Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [4] “The FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of Kuljinder Singh for an incident which took place on 21.1.2011 at his residence. It is stated in the FIR that marriage of the son of the complainant was solemnised on that day in village Dholewal, near Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Some artists were performing at the stage. Malkit Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Simranjit Singh, Narinder Singh, Sarup Singh and Satwinder Singh accompanied the Baraat. Time and again, they all were going towards the stage in drunken condition and harassing the artists. When they were restrained from doing so, they got angry and abused Gurinder Singh son of Sukhdev Singh, who is son of the maternal uncle of the complainant. A scuffle also took place there. However, the aforesaid persons left the place threatening that they will teach a lesson to the complainant for stopping them from going to the stage. After the marriage, the complainant along with his relatives came to their village Gidri in the evening at about 6.00 P.M. At about 9.15 P.M., when certain celebrations on the eve of marriage were going on at their residence, it is alleged in the FIR that Malkit Singh armed with 12 bore rifle, Simranjit Singh armed with 32 bore revolver, Narinder Singh armed with 12 bore rifle, Jaswinder Singh armed with 315 bore rifle, Sarup Singh armed with 12 bore rifle and Satwinder Singh armed with 32 bore revolver along with 8-10 unidentified persons armed with swords and baseball bats came in two Swift cars, number of one of which was mentioned as PB-55-6422, one Black colour Scorpio and motor cycle No. PB-08BG-8211. On reaching there, the accused damaged the cars parked outside the house of the complainant. When stopped from doing so, while threatening the complainant, they started indiscriminate firing with an Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [5] intention to kill the complainant. However, he was saved while running inside the house and closed the doors. All the accused forcibly entered the house and fired, the pellets and the lead hit the walls, roof, doors and windows. Even the doors, windows and glasses were broken with baseball bats and swords. After alarm was raised by the complainant and the neighbourers collected, the accused ran away. Out of the persons named in the FIR, only Jaswinder Singh was arrested on 10.5.2011. Other person arrested is Jarnail Singh on 27.5.2011. He is not named in the FIR. His name cropped up in the disclosure statements of Rajbir and Sandeep, who were arrested in FIR No. 91 dated 2.4.2011, registered under Section 302 IPC, Police Station, Payal, where they disclosed the names of certain other persons, who were present at the time of incident stating that they were also called by the accused party and were involved in the crime along with the persons named by them in their disclosure statements. Criminal Misc.-M Nos. 15045, 19192, 19459 and 20599 of 2011 Primary contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in the aforesaid petitions is that the petitioners herein have been falsely implicated. They have not been named in the FIR. In fact, they were not present at the spot. Their names cropped up only in the disclosure statement of one Rajbir recorded by the police in custody after he was arrested in another FIR registered against him under Section 302 IPC, where he confessed commission of crime in the present case as well. The submission is that personal liberty of the petitioners should not be curtailed on the basis of statement of an accused, who is also not named in the FIR, but whose disclosure statement was recorded in custody when he was arrested in some other case. The petitioners otherwise are ready to join investigation. Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [6] Criminal Misc.-M No. 20617 and 20734 of 2011 Prayer in the aforesaid petitions is for grant of regular bail to petitioners, namely, Jaswinder Singh and Jarnail Singh. They are in custody since 10.5.2011 and 27.5.2011 respectively. Petitioner-Jaswinder Singh has been named in the FIR, whereas petitioner-Jarnail Singh is not named in the FIR. His name was disclosed by one Rajbir, who is also not named in the FIR but he confessed commission of crime in the present case when he was arrested in another FIR registered under Section 302 IPC. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner-Jaswinder Singh is that he has been falsely implicated. In fact, he was a class-mate of the bridegroom. He is nephew of one Achhar Singh. There were some matrimonial talks of the bridegroom with one NRI girl. Her family made certain enquiries from the uncle of the petitioner and they were informed that he was a minor. The family of the bridegroom was having grievance against the petitioner’s family on that account and for that reason, he has been falsely implicated. In fact, FIR No. 252 was got registered on the complaint of uncle of the petitioner against the bridegroom and his father on 9.8.2011. He further submitted that petitioner-Jaswinder Singh is a student of 10+2 class. His examinations are commencing from 29.9.2011. In Criminal Misc.-M No. 20946 of 2011—Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab, learned counsel for the petitioner, while not disputing that the petitioner has been named in the FIR, however, placing reliance upon an earlier order passed by this court in Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011- Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, decided on 23.5.2011, submitted that petitioner-Sarup Singh is similarly placed as co-accused Narinder Singh, who has already been granted benefit of pre-arrest bail by this court. It is a case of no injury, hence there are chances of false implication. Admittedly, none of the member of the complainant party was out of the house to have recognised any of the accused. In Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011—Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Criminal Misc.-M No. 19192 of 2011- Kuldip Singh @ Kala v. State of Punjab, this court had issued suo-motu notice for cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners therein. Pre-arrest Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [7] bail to petitioner-Narinder Singh was confirmed by Rajan Gupta, J. (when his Lordship was dealing with bail applications), whereas in Kuldip Singh’s case (supra), interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier was confirmed by this court. As far as cancellation of bail is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner-Narinder Singh submitted that he had not misled this court while praying for pre-arrest bail. All the facts were placed before the court. Whatever the State sought to argue was also placed before the court and considering those facts, the court had confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail granted to him. He had joined investigation as and when required. He has not mis-used concession of bail, hence, pre-arrest bail granted to him should not be cancelled. Further referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikramjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992(3) RCR (Criminal) 7, the submission is that judicial proprietary requires that bail granted by one Judge of this court should not be cancelled by other Judge. He further placed reliance upon a judgment of Bombay High Court in Rajendra Jainarayan Sharma v. R. P. Patankar, Asstt. Collector of Customs, New Customs House, Bombay, 1993 CriLJ 1550; to submit that power for cancellation of bail already granted cannot be exercised suo- motu. In Kuldip Singh’s case in addition to the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner-Narinder Singh, it was submitted that petitioner-Kuldip Singh was not named in the FIR. He was named by one Rajbir in his disclosure statement. Even Rajbir has also not been named in the FIR. He was arrested in another FIR registered under Section 302 IPC, where he disclosed to have committed the crime in the present case as well. He further submitted that petitioner-Kuldip Singh had joined investigation and even thereafter the police could not collect any material which could link him with the crime. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that there are six accused named in the FIR, i.e., Malkit Singh, Simranjit Singh, Narinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Sarup Singh and Satwinder Singh. Malkit Singh has not been arrested so far. Narinder Singh has been Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [8] granted pre-arrest bail and Satwinder Singh has been found innocent by the police. Simranjit Singh and Sarup Singh have prayed for anticipatory bail, whereas Jaswinder Singh, who has been arrested, is seeking regular bail. However, he did not dispute the fact that the petitioners, who were granted interim pre-arrest bail by this court, have joined investigation. He further submitted that the accused named in the FIR, or who were not named, are in fact operating like a gang and creating terror in the area. In addition to the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that Narinder Singh, who has been granted pre-arrest bail by this court is specifically named in the FIR. One of the cars used in the crime is owned by him. In fact, the State did not produce complete material before this court at the time of consideration of pre-arrest bail application filed by Narinder Singh. He further submitted that the accused, who have been named in the disclosure statement of Rajbir are also involved in the crime as otherwise Rajbir had no reason to have admitted commission of the crime in the present case and name certain persons. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper books. As far as petitioners-Dalbir Singh @ Mithu, Hardeep Singh, Sandeep Singh and Jarnail Singh are concerned, undisputedly they are not named in the FIR. Their names cropped up in the disclosure statement of one Rajbir in custody, who is also not named in the FIR, but after he was arrested in some other murder case. Considering the aforesaid facts and also the stand of learned counsel for the State that petitioners, who were granted pre-arrest bail, have joined investigation, in my opinion, petitioners-Dalbir Singh @ Mithu, Hardeep Singh and Sandeep Singh are not required to be taken into custody for interrogation Accordingly, the interim bail granted to petitioner- Dalbir Singh @ Mithu on 23.5.2011 is made absolute. Petitioners-Hardeep Singh and Sandeep Singh shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 3.10.2011 at 10.00 AM for joining investigation. In case of arrest, they shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [9] satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Petitioner-Jarnail Singh be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. As far as petitioners –Simranjit Singh and Sarup Singh are concerned, even if it is a case of no injury, the contents of the FIR, background of the case and further the manner in which the accused party had indulged in indiscriminate firing and use of other weapons outside the house of the complainant, breaking doors, window pans and damaging the vehicles parked outside the house, in my opinion, the petitioners do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. No one can be given liberty to terrorise others only for their seductive pleasure and take law into their own hands. If these kinds of incidents are permitted and the accused specifically named in the FIR are not even taken into custody, there will be anarchy in the society. Accordingly, Criminal Misc.- M No. 16437 of 2011-Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Criminal Misc.-M No. 20946 of 2011-Sarup Singh v. State of Punjab, are dismissed. As far as cancellation of bail granted to petitioner-Kuldip Singh @ Kala (Criminal Misc.-M No. 19192 of 2011) is concerned, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner herein does not deserve to be re-called as he is not named in the FIR. His name cropped up only in the disclosure statement of one Rajbir in police custody. Rajbir is also not named in the FIR. He was arrested in some other murder case, where he disclosed about commission of crime in the present case. The other co-accused, similarly situated, have been granted bail by this court. Hence, the proceedings initiated for cancellation of bail to petitioner-Kuldip Singh @ Kala are dropped. As far as grant of regular bail to petitioner- Jaswinder Singh is concerned, considering the seriousness of allegations in the FIR, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of regular bail at this stage. However, Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 [10] considering the fact that the claim made in the petition filed in Criminal Misc.-M No. 20617 of 2011—Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab is that he has to appear in 10+2 examination commencing from 29.9.2011, in my opinion, he deserves to be granted interim bail upto two days after the conclusion of examinations. The exact date for conclusion of examinations shall be furnished by the petitioner herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana at the time of furnishing of bail bonds. Petitioner-Jaswinder singh is directed to be released on interim bail subject to his furnishing heavy surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. As far as cancellation of bail granted to Narinder Singh (Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011) is concerned, in my opinion, considering the fact that he was granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court, it would not be appropriate for this court to re-call that order, as this court is not sitting in appeal against that order. Petitioner-Narinder Singh has specifically been named in the FIR. Even car used in the crime, which has been mentioned in the FIR, is also owned by him. Apparently, complete facts were not placed before the court at that time. Considering the material, as referred to above, in my opinion, the matter regarding cancellation of bail granted to petitioner-Narinder Singh is required to be placed before Rajan Gupta, J. Let the needful be done after obtaining orders from Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice. All the petitions except Criminal Misc.-M No. 13133 of 2011 —Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, stand disposed of. A photo copy of the order be placed on the files of each connected case. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge September 27,2011 mk