IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-17347 of 2009 (O/M). Date of Decision : August 25, 2009. Pawan Kumar s/o Sh. Janardhan Kaushik, aged about 36 years, Inspector of Police, Harayna, r/o House No. 250, Housing Board Colony, Jind (Haryana). (Now confined in Central Jail, Ambala). ...... Petitioner . Versus. C.B.I. Chandigarh. ..... Respondent . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana and Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Sandhu, Central Government Standing Counsel, for C.B.I. Chandigarh. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). The present petition is for grant of regular bail. As per allegation against the petitioner, it is asserted that the petitioner had not properly investigated the case and to start with got F.I.R. recorded under the wrong provisions and thereafter as per the statement of A.S.I. Prahlad Singh, who is the person who had recorded the F.I.R., no directions were issued to him either to issue summons to the complainant or to call the complainant for investigation purposes. It is further the allegation that as per statement of A.S.I. Prahlad Singh, the petitioner did not direct the arrest of accused in the case. It is further contention of C.B.I. that all this was done with an intention to help the accused, who were police officials and even the medical of the complainant was not got done, when it was a matter, where allegations were made against the police officials of her being gang raped by two of them. Criminal Misc. No. M-17347 of 2009 . Counsel for the petitioner contends that all these allegations primarily are to be proved by the prosecution at the stage of trial. However, he submits that F.I.R. itself suggest that the offence, which has been said to have been committed by the accused, was recorded by A.S.I. Prahlad Singh. In the F.I.R. itself, it is mentioned that the S.H.O., who is the petitioner, had been informed on phone after registration of the F.I.R. He thereafter relies upon rapat No. 47 dated 31.05.2008 (Annexure-P-2), where again it had been so entered by A.S.I. Prahlad Singh. He on this basis submits that the petitioner was not present at the police station, when the F.I.R. was registered. He further contends that thereafter the petitioner had been on V.I.P. duty, and, therefore, could not participate in the investigation. He on this basis submits that the basic allegations against the petitioner having been dispelled from the documentary evidence, which has been placed on record, which documents are not denied by the prosecution in their reply, which they had filed before this Court. The allegations as made against the petitioner, prima-facie, appear to be not correct. His further submission is that the stand taken by the C.B.I. that the petitioner had not given his correct permanent residential address, which led to his not being summoned, is incorrect in support whereof he has produced his copy of earlier petition, which he had preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. No. M- 12808 of 2009, the original identity card of the petitioner dated 12.12.2007, old ration card and certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar, which goes to show that his permanent address from his entry into service till date is the same, which had been given by the petitioner during investigation to the C.B.I. He on this basis submits that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. -2- Criminal Misc. No. M-17347 of 2009 . On the other hand, counsel for the C.B.I. has opposed the bail petition primarily on the ground that the address, which had been given by the petitioner during investigation was not found to be correct as he could not be served on the said address, when the summons were issued. He further contends that the C.B.I. has specific evidence in the form of statement of A.S.I. Prahlad Singh, who had stated specifically that the F.I.R. was registered at the instructions of the petitioner and D.S.P. Dhiraj Setia. He has further stated in his statement that both were present at the time when the F.I.R. was registered. His assertion is that the statement of A.S.I. Prahlad Singh further goes to show that an effort was made by the petitioner to shield the accused by getting the wrong sections incorporated of the offence than which was committed by the accused in the FIR and the conduct of the petitioner during investigation, that he did not order the arrest of the accused nor did he direct A.S.I. Prahlad Singh to issue summons for presence of the complainant. All this, he submits, show that the intention of the petitioner, which was a malafide on his part to scuttle the investigation. He further submits that wrong entries had been made in the records. He on the basis of the mobile phone records of the complainant submits that, on the date when it is asserted i.e. 08.06.2008 by the petitioner that he had tried to contact the complainant on her mobile phone but the same was found switched off, cannot be accepted to be correct. He on this basis submits that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail. Counsel for the C.B.I. further states that in the light of position he is holding and the conduct, the prosecution is apprehensive that he would threaten the witnesses and try to influence them not to depose against him. -3- Criminal Misc. No. M-17347 of 2009 . I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As far as the contention of the C.B.I. is concerned that he had given wrong address during his investigation, cannot be accepted for the reason that the documents, which have been produced by counsel for the petitioner in the Court, clearly show that the address which he had given during his investigation to the C.B.I. was indeed his permanent address as from the very entry in service till date the said address is reflected in the records. That is a different position that the summons were not served upon him for the reason that he was not found there or he was not at that moment residing there. As regards the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner has influenced the process of investigation and has infact tampered with the records, the same also in the light of submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as recorded above which has been reflected in the documents, which have been placed on record i.e. the F.I.R. and Rapat (Annexure-P-2) would be a question of evidence, which has to be decided, on the basis of evidence to be produced before the Trial Court. Thus, it cannot be at this stage said that the assertion made by the C.B.I. is correct or incorrect. However, keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude soon as there are 84 witnesses, who are to be examined and the stage of the trial is that the charge is likely to be framed tomorrow. Further the investigation in the case is complete and, therefore, his custody is not required by the prosecution for any purposes. The contention, which has been raised by the C.B.I. with regard to his influencing, the witnesses, who are likely to appear and depose against him also cannot be accepted at this stage. However, in case such an -4- Criminal Misc. No. M-17347 of 2009 . eventuality happens or the prosecution comes to a conclusion to that effect, the provisions of law do provide for a remedy for that. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 25, 2009. sjks. -5-