Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: August 08, 2011. Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011. Naresh Kumar Sehgal .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Rita Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J. Petitioner claims himself to be a Journalist and President of All India Hindu Welfare Committee. Apprehending arrest in FIR No.294 dated 31.12.2010, registered at the instance of Surinder Singh Bedi, alleging that on 29.12.2010, the complainant was going with Surinder Kapoor riding pillion on his motorcycle. At about 8:00 PM, Naresh Kumar Sehgal, the petitioner, along with three other unidentified persons intercepted them. The petitioner raised Lalkara that they will not be left alive. Surinder Kapoor allegedly accelerated the motorcycle, on which the petitioner had . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011 attacked with Kappa with an intention to kill them. As Surinder Kapoor bowed his head, Kappa hit on the back side of the head of complainant and he fell down from the motorcycle but Surinder Kapoor escaped from the spot. While complainant was laying down, the petitioner attacked the complainant with Kappa hitting the complainant on his right leg whereas the three unidentified persons hit kicked the complainant on his back. When he raised alarm, the petitioner escaped from the spot along with his accomplice. The complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Kotkapura. The motive which has been attributed by the complainant is that the complainant's relation Ravinder has got a dispute with the complainant and with a vindictive mind, Naresh Kumar Sehgal sharing common intention with his co-accused had inflicted injuries on his person whereas Surinder Kapoor had a narrow escape. The statement of the complainant was recorded after receipt of MLR on 29.12.2010. After verifying the facts, the FIR was registered on 31.12.2010, against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as he has got registered a case under Section 307, 392, 327, 323, 201 & 120-B IPC as FIR No.129 dated 30.06.2006, against the Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab, at Police Station, Kotkapura. He had been approached by the Deputy Chief Minister, to compromise the matter and therefore, had not succumbed to the pressure rather he filed a petition in the High Court for handing over the transfer of said case . . . 2 Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011 to CBI and to protect his life and liberty. The police is helping accused in FIR No.129 of 2006 by presenting a half backed challan in the Court of Judicial Magistrate. He claims that he has been assaulted number of times at the instance of the Deputy Chief Minister. He claims that on 11.05.2009, a murderous attack was made on him by five unidentified persons in Kotkapura, therefore, he has filed a miscellaneous application in the High Court for necessary action. He claims that on 07.08.2009, he was attacked by Raju Thapar and others and was admitted in a Hospital at Kotkapura but the police did not record his statement as such, he had to approach High Court for necessary action. He has submitted in the petition that despite orders of the High Court, the petitioner has not been provided any security. He has been provided Gunman in papers. He claims that on 31.03.2010, he was intercepted by Rommy Kapoor and others and he was threatened to withdraw the cases against the Deputy Chief Minister and caused serious injuries to him when he refused to sign an affidavit. He was admitted in Hospital. Petitioner had again filed a petition for protection of his life and liberty. He claims that on 18.12.2010, he was again attacked by Ajit Kumar Mehta and others threatening to withdraw the cases against the Deputy Chief Minister. Petitioner had received injuries and was medico-legally examined in Civil Hospital, Kotkapura. Though his statement was recorded by the police but no action was taken. He claims that on 09.12.2010, X-ray was conducted. Ajit Mehta, Rommy Kapoor and other police officials had again threatened him to . . . 3 Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011 withdraw the complaint and leave the hospital. He claims that on 26.12.2010, again a murderous attack was made on him by accused Rommy Kapoor along with other persons and when he was going on his scooter, they gave beatings to the petitioner. The petitioner went to the Hospital where he was medico-legally examined for injuries suffered by him. Petitioner reported the matter to the senior police officials, but again no action was taken. He claims that an FIR No.293 dated 30.12.2010, was registered regarding the occurrence dated 26.12.2010. The petitioner has pleaded that on 26.12.2010, when he was admitted in Emergency Ward, he was attacked by three persons armed with Kirpan, and other sharp edged weapons. He claim that Surinder Kapoor, and his brother Rommy Kapoor caught hold of petitioner from his neck and gave blows with butt of weapon. He raised alarm and on arrival of hospital staff the assailants ran away. His injuries were recorded vide MLR No.130 dated 26.12.2010. I have carefully taken into consideration each and every allegation of the petitioner. Since the petitioner had levelled allegations which are extraneous to the merits of the case, the State opted to file a detailed reply. The petitioner was directed to join investigation vide interim order dated 21.02.2011. A detailed affidavit was filed by the Senior Superintendent of Police on behalf of the State that when the petitioner joined the investigation on 12.04.2011, he threatened the Investigating Officer claiming that he was chief Editor of a Newspaper and he was President of All India Hindu . . . 4 Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011 Welfare Committee and that Sukhbir Singh Badal had got an attack made on him and an FIR No.129 dated 20.06.2010, was recorded and that he had filed many writs against Surinder Singh Bedi and others in the High Court and that some senior officer should investigate the matter. He refused to cooperate in the investigation and threatened that he would easily get bail from the High Court. He claimed that he was not feeling well and requested for some time for rest. After ten minutes he again repeated the words above mentioned. He again threatened the Investigating Officer. He threatened that he would file a writ against the Investigating Officer. In the affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, it is mentioned that the petitioner had threatened that he was contesting against the high rank officers of the Government and that they are scared of him whereas the Investigating Officer is a petty officer in comparison to him. On the pretext of he not having good health, he was left free by the Investigating Officer. On interrogation, the approach of the petitioner was evasive. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit reiterating the pleas taken in the petition. After going through the entire history, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is in the habit of filing complaints to all the authorities like President, Prime Minister, Home Minister, Governor of the State, Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary to DGP, ADGP, DIGs and SHOs for his every grievance. His allegation that he has lodged an FIR against the present Deputy Chief Minister in the year 2006 and he has got apprehension in his . . . 5 Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011 mind that on account of said FIR, he is being threatened, beaten and harassed by everyone at the instance of the Deputy Chief Minister. It appears that the petitioner does not miss any opportunity to claim advantage of the pendency of criminal cases having been registered at his instance and he alleges vindictiveness against the Deputy Chief Minister and every police official from the rank of DGP to SHO for everything happening to him. The affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, and the report of Investigating Officer and various DDRs recorded, are indicative of the fact that the petitioner is in the habit of repeating the above said events as and when he is required to explain his conduct. Ms.Rita Kohli, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing for the State has submitted that in view of the conduct of the petitioner in issuing irresponsible statements and levelling false allegations against all the police officials and even the Deputy Chief Minister, the petition should be dismissed as the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and sole object of the petitioner is merely to malign and threaten the police authorities. She submitted that the petitioner is a habitual complaint maker and he is in the habit of approaching the High Court for directions on the basis of false allegations. He has been provided security. Even the Gunman provided to the petitioner was made to appear in the Court to apprise this Court that the petitioner has voluntarily opted not to use the security given by him. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as well . . . 6 Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011 as the counsel for the State, and I am of the opinion that attention of the Court has unnecessarily been sought to be diverted from the merits of the case. Merely on account of habit of the petitioner in repeating his story of being Editor, in conflict with senior political persons and victim of the atrocities of the police despite having provided security on the directions of the High Court, the petitioner is under misconceived notion that on account of his status and importance all forces of the State are concentrated upon him to harm him. It is a high time that the petitioner should properly channelize his energies for public good to use his status as a Journalist for constructive purposes for the welfare of the State and Country. Irrespective of the above said controversy, I have carefully gone through the allegations of the complainant against the petitioner and I am of the opinion that an FIR has certainly been registered at the instance of petitioner for an occurrence dated 26.12.2010, for an assault as FIR No.293 of 30.12.2010, against Surinder Kapoor and others. It cannot be said to be unnatural and improbable that on 29.12.2010, the petitioner had also attacked the said Surinder Kapoor and injured complainant Surinder Singh Bedi. It will not be appropriate to indulge in the falsity of the allegations levelled by the petitioner in FIR No.293 of 30.12.2010, or the allegations levelled by Surinder Singh Bedi against him in FIR No.294 dated 31.12.2010, pertaining to another incident dated 29.12.2010, lodged at the instance of Surinder Singh Bedi against the petitioner, but prima facie, the strength of the case of prosecution . . . 7 Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011 is being determined in order to see if the petitioner could be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail in the present case. I have perused the original file of FIR No.294 dated 31.12.2010, registered under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323/34 IPC, at Police Station, City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, and taken into consideration the injuries received by Surinder Singh Bedi as per the MLR. He had suffered four injuries. Injury Nos.1, 3 & 4, of skull and spine have not been found to contain any bone injury but so far as injury No.2, on the right leg is concerned, as per the X-ray report, there was a cut in the interior cortex of tibia. I have perused the X-ray as well as the skiagram regarding the injuries. The said injury being “grievous” is certainly debatable. It will be required to be determined, on appreciation of evidence, whether minor bone cut of the interior cortex of tibia could be considered a grievous injury under Section 320 IPC. Finding all the allegations mentioned in the petition to be frivolous and considering the prima facie case of prosecution on merits and taking into consideration the nature of disputed injury No.2, on the person of complainant, the petitioner can be granted the concession of pre- arrest bail. The petition is allowed. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the following conditions: - (i) That the petitioner will join the investigation as and when required by the police by a written notice served upon him on the day, date and time . . . 8 Crl.Misc. No.M-5320 of 2011 given in the notice; (ii) That the petitioner will not make any attempt to tamper with evidence or threaten the witnesses or the Investigating Agency on the basis of his previous litigation and orders in his favour; (iii) That the petitioner will not leave India without the prior permission of the Court; and (iv) That the petitioner will not commit the similar offence of which he is accused of during the entire period of trial. In case of violation of any of the above said conditions and a complaint filed by the prosecution agency or the complainant, the present order will be liable to be cancelled. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 08, 2011. rka . . . 9