IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009 Date of decision: 25th March, 2009 Amrik Singh @ Rana Sardar … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Shiv Raj Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, two petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009 preferred by Amrik Singh @ Rana Sardar and Criminal Misc. No. M-4550 of 2009 preferred by Sukhbir @ Sahil @ Sai, shall be decided together. Both petitioners have been named as accused in case FIR No. 431 dated 27.09.2008 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak under Sections 304, 34 IPC. One Rahul son of Dhaneshwar had died. Initially case FIR No. 429 dated 26.09.2008 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines Rohtak. This FIR was lodged at the instance of one Lakshman son of Jai Bahadur He stated that he is a resident of Patel Nagar, Rohtak. He had taken one room on rent, where he had kept his luggage. When he came back from doing his work, he found that lock of his room was broken and Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009 one boy had entered his room. He raised noise ‘thief thief’, then the thief attempted to run away and fell from the wall and suffered injuries. Thereafter, mob empowered him and the mob had given beating. Thief had disclosed his name as Rahul son of Dhaneshwar. The thief Rahul was handed over to the police. Statedly, Rahul died in the Police Station. Thereafter, case FIR No. 431 dated 27.09.2008 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines Rohtak under Sections 304, 34 IPC at the instance of Puran Sehgal. A perusal of this FIR reveal that similar allegations have been repeated, except that Rahul fell from the wall. In nutshell, FIR contained the averment that Rahul was given injuries by the mob. Since Rahul had died in the Police Station, magisterial inquiry was conducted. Inquiry report has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009. Inquiry report has also noticed the fact that Rahul was not properly medically examined by Dr.Rita Goyal and she took the case in a very casual manner. Magistrate relied upon the statement of the doctors to hold that injuries suffered by Rahul were prior to 3.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence. Concluding portion of the report read as under: “Perusal of the statement as mentioned above shows that the death of Rahul in lock up, Police Station Civil Line is not natural, but due to severe injuries given by some boys as named indicating above with slaps, fists, kicks and iron rod before producing him before the Police. Original record is enclosed herewith for your kind perusal and necessary action please.” Mr. Shiv Raj Malik appearing for petitioner Amrik Singh @ Rana Sardar has stated that in fact Rahul had died in police custody, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that he was tortured by the police and he received injures at the Police Station. It has been urged that both 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009 petitioners have been falsely implicated to absolve the police officials of the offence. Mr. Malik has further stated that petitioner Amrik Singh @ Rana Sardar is said to have given fist blows, therefore, no recovery is to be effected from him. It has further been submitted by Mr. Malik that there is no evidence with the prosecution to hold that the injuries given by the petitioner were fatal. Mr. Amit Khatkar appearing for State has submitted that no fault can be found with the magisterial inquiry, as it is an independent inquiry and during the inquiry it has surfaced that Rahul had died due to injuries given by the mob. It has further been stated that disclosure statement of Sehdev was recorded and in pursuance of the same, iron rod was recovered. In the disclosure statement, it has been stated that Sukhbir has given injury with iron rod, whereas Amrik Singh has caused slaps and fist blows. It has further been submitted that another accused Abhishek has also suffered a disclosure statement and in pursuance of the same, no recovery has been effected. In the disclosure statements suffered by both Amrik Singh and Sukhbir, name of the petitioners surface. It has further been submitted that the third co-accused Manjit, who has been declared Juvenile and granted bail, has suffered extrajudicial confession to Jaipal. In his extrajudicial confession, he has named both the petitioners. Mr. N.K. Sanghi appearing for the petitioner Sukhbir @ Sahil @ Sai has submitted that in disclosure statement, name recorded of the petitioner is not one, by which name, petitioner Sukhbir is known. Petitioner is a student and his custodial interrogation is not necessary. To controvert argument of State Counsel, Mr. Malik has stated that extrajudicial confession made by co-accused is not admissible 3 Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009 in evidence and disclosure statement is also admissible only qua the recovery effected and rest of the disclosure statement is inadmissible. Mr. Amit Khatkar, AAG Haryana has stated that arrest of the petitioners is required and iron rod is to be recovered from Sukhbir. However, he has stated that since Amrik Singh has given fist blows, his custody is not required, but no bail be granted to him because of the allegations levelled against him. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties. Admissibility of the evidence gathered till today will be examined during the trial. At this time, investigation is at initial stage. Investigating Agency has to gather evidence. Therefore, custodial interrogation of both the petitioners may be necessary as this Court cannot thwart the investigation by granting pre- arrest bail. However, petitioners will be entitled to approach the concerned Court for regular bail, after the period of their police remand is over. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE March 25, 2009 rps 4