Crl. Misc. No.M-17435 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-17435 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.11.2010 Harpreet Singh alias Sonu Baba .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.B.S.Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, AA.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 29.10.2009 for the offences under Sections 115 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar. The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of a secret information received by Sub Inspector Joginder Singh, SHO, Police Station Islamabad. According to Sub Inspector, SHO, Police Station Islamabad, he along with other Police officials were on patrol duty in a Government vehicle, which was being driven by HC Sukhraj Singh. They were present at Dhapai road, when a special informer informed Sub- Inspector Joginder Singh that Jasbir Singh, Rana and Vicky were habitual of indulging in nefarious activities and were required by the Police in a number of cases. ASI Dilbagh Singh was making efforts to arrest them and even earlier also he had arrested them. The said accused persons, in order to save themselves, in connivance with each other, had entered into a conspiracy to kill ASI Dilbagh Singh. The said persons had given a Crl. Misc. No.M-17435 of 2010 ::2:: photograph in uniform of ASI Dilbagh Singh along with an amount of Rs.30,000/- to Harpreet Singh alias Sonu Baba (petitioner) as 'supari' (contract money) for killing ASI Dilbagh Singh and the balance amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was agreed to be paid on completion of the work. The said information was considered reliable and offences under Section 115 and 120-B IPC were held to be made out against the accused. Accordingly, a memo was sent to the Police Station for registration of FIR. The petitioner is a three-wheeler driver and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner he has no relation with any anti- social elements. It is submitted that Kulwant Singh Mahawa father of the petitioner is an active member of the Bahujan Samaj Party and he (father of the petitioner) had moved an application before the Punjab Human Rights Commission against ASI Dilbagh Singh alleging that the latter was demanding bribe from him. It was alleged in the said application that on information given by one Harnek Singh, resident of Attari, ASI Dilbagh Singh, Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar raided the house of one Dilbagh Singh, resident of Bachiwind, who is brother-in-law of Harnek Singh and an illegal pistol was recovered from the possession of said Dilbagh Singh, but no case was registered as the accused had paid Rs.16,000/- to ASI Dilbagh Singh. On 23.09.2000, ASI Dilbagh Singh approached the complainant Kulwant Singh Mahawa and asked him to take him to Harnek Singh. Accordingly, the complainant Kulwant Singh Mahawa took ASI Dilbagh Singh and another Police official to the house of Harnek Singh. The Police party apprehended the complainant-Kulwant Singh Mahawa and Harnek Singh and put them in a Tata Sumo vehicle and proceeded towards Amritsar. On the way, the said ASI threatened them as they had given wrong information against the aforesaid Dilbagh Singh and demanded Rs.10,000/- for releasing them and on their undertaking to pay the said amount they were released. It was alleged that they managed to Crl. Misc. No.M-17435 of 2010 ::3:: give Rs.7000/- and paid the amount to him. The said Police Officer i.e. ASI Dilbagh Singh had threatened them to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,000/- otherwise, they would be involved in a false case. The said application filed by Kulwant Singh Mahawa, father of the petitioner was dismissed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, vide order dated 27.11.2001 (Annexure P-2) primarily because the accused did not appear. It is submitted that in view of the said application, the Police nursed a grudge and has implicated the petitioner in the present case though he is not involved in any case. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is a contract-killer and had taken contract- money (supari) for killing ASI Dilbagh Singh. The photograph of ASI Dilbagh Singh and a sum of Rs.30,000/- was given to the petitioner. It is submitted that the said photograph and a sum of Rs.30,000/- is to be recovered from the petitioner. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is a three-wheeler driver. Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Harjit Singh, Police Station Islamabad, District Amritsar, submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is not disputed that the father of the petitioner namely Kulwant Singh Mahawa had filed an application before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, wherein it is alleged that Dilbagh Singh, ASI, had demanded the money from them in a case. Besides, it was also alleged that he had arrested and released them on their giving Rs.7000/-. The complaint was, however, dismissed by the Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, vide order dated 27.11.2001 (Annexure P-2), on account of the reason that the complainant-Kulwant Singh Mahawa, did not appear on the said date. The case is registered on the basis of a secret Crl. Misc. No.M-17435 of 2010 ::4:: information. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the State that the custody of the petitioner is required as the photograph of ASI Dilbagh Singh and a sum of Rs.30,000/- which was given as contract money for killing ASI Dilbagh Singh are to be recovered. The question of giving photograph of ASI Dilbagh Singh to the petitioner does not appear to be plausible as Dilbagh Singh, ASI must have been known to the petitioner as his father-Kulwant Singh Mahawa was in litigation with him before the Punjab State Human Rights Commission. The recovery of Rs.30,000/- said to be given as contract money is also quite improbable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. In the circumstances of the case, there is no ground on which the petitioner can be denied the concession of pre-arrest bail as the allegations as made are not such which would warrant the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 19.08.2010 is made absolute. Criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE November 10, 2010 sukhpreet