IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-25979 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 08, 2008 Tejinder Sudhir & Others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS The State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate, for the complainant. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.359 dated 27.11.2007 lodged for offences under Section(s) 307, 326, 324, 323, 120-B, 34 IPC with Police Station, Nakodar, District Jalandhar. The petitioners before this Court are Tejinder Sudhir, Ravinder Kumar and Rahul Sharda. Order dated 20.10.2008 notices the following:- “Case of the petitioners is that some unknown persons assaulted the complainant, and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. Crl. Misc. No. M-25979 of 2008 [2] The gist of the allegations against the petitioners is that Kamal Bakshi, brother of complainant Pardeep Kumar was married to Sankirti @ Reetu daughter of Ravinder Kumar Sharda 6-7 years back. A petition for divorce had been pending for four years and now a Court in Canada, where they had been living, had granted divorce. Ria, a daughter born to Kamal Bakshi and Sankirti got ½ share in the property. Sister of the complainant namely, Shashi, was married to Ajay Joshi son of Amrit Lal Joshi and the two were residing in Canada. After divorce of Kamal, Sankirti started living with Ajay Joshi. A few days back, as per the allegations, Ajay Joshi and Sankirti threatened the complainant on phone. The incident is said to have taken place on 24.11.2007. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the FIR is belated in so much as the incident took place on 24.7.2007 where-against FIR was lodged on 27.7.2007. This is despite the fact that the injured was conscious and could have given a statement to the police. In view of these circumstances, it is a concocted and fabricated story so as to implicate the petitioners. The other argument of the learned counsel is that two investigations were conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nakodar and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar. The result of the investigation finds mention in Annexures P-5 and P-7 respectively. The reports indicate innocence of the petitioners. The reports were accepted by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Indication was that two other persons were accused. Subsequently, a third investigation/ enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala in June 2008.” Learned counsel for the respondent- State, on instructions from Harjit Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, has not been able to dispute the fact that two investigation were earlier conducted and finalised vide reports Annexures P-5 and P-7. It is only in 3rd investigation report i.e. Annexure P-10 that it has been concluded by the investigating agency that the petitioners were involved in commission of offence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Crl. Misc. No. M-25979 of 2008 [3] Learned counsel for the respondent- State has been given assistance by learned counsel appearing for the complainant. It has been projected by learned counsel for the complainant that investigating agency is biased pro the accused and a fair investigation has not been conducted. It seems that the first investigation was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective), District Jalandhar and report was submitted on 17.1.2008. The following is the conclusion drawn by the said investigating officer:- “….. On 24-11-07, at the time of the incident, it has been found that the applicant was present at his shop and thereafter, had gone to Kai’s Chaki, Nakodar and thereafter had been gone to his house and Rahul Sharda son of the applicant has been found to have been gone to his relative in Ludhiana. From my enquiry, the applicant Ravinder Sharda and his son Rahul Sharda have been found to have no connection with this incident. Both of them are absolutely innocent. I declare them innocent in this case….” Perusal of the above portion indicates that it was concluded that Ravinder Kumar Sharda was present at his shop and thereafter had gone to Kai’s Chaki, Nakodar and thereafter to his house. The other petitioner Rahul Sharda was found to have gone to his relative in Ludhiana. In the second investigation report dated 30.1.2008 that has been placed on record as Annexure P-7 authored by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Nakodar, following is the conclusion:- Crl. Misc. No. M-25979 of 2008 [4] “Resultantly, from my investigation, it has been found that Amrit Lal Joshi son of Sharan Dass, who is aged about 70 years, has been found to have been gone to Bikaner (Rajasthan) at the time of incident in the aforesaid case, in connection with the marriage of his sister’s daughter. Tejinder Kumar Sudhir son of Jai Gopal Sudhir, resident of Mohalla Krishan Nagar, Nurmahal has been found to have gone to Phagwara for taking medicine for his wife at the time of the incident and Tejinder Kumar Sudhir is the son-in-law of Amrit Lal Joshi, names of whom have been deliberately got mentioned by the complainant Pardeep Kumar in the aforesaid case on account of enmity amongst the relations. Therefore, subject to approval, it is recommended that after taking out Amrit Lal Joshi, Tejinder Kumar Sudhir, who are innocent in the aforesaid case, from the aforesaid case, legal action be taken against the remaining accused.” It has been concluded that Tejinder Kumar, petitioner No.1 in this petition, had gone to Phagwara for taking medicine for his wife at the time of incident. Annexure P-10 is the 3rd investigation report which finds the accused named in the FIR to have committed the offence. In the concluding portion, however, the investigating Officer in report dated 25.6.2008 states as under:- “…. Therefore, the SHO, P.S. Nakodar, may be directed to arrest the above said nominated accused persons in the FIR immediately and if during the course of investigation, name of any other accused comes to surface, appropriate legal action as per law may also be taken against him….” It therefore transpires that FIR having been lodged on 27.11.2007 and as many as three investigations having been conducted by various officers of reasonably senior rank till 25.6.2008, the investigation had not been concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of the Court towards Order dated Crl. Misc. No. M-25979 of 2008 [5] 1.4.2008 passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab, in regard to the repeated/ more than one enquiry/ investigations being conducted at the district levels. Considering the confusion created by more than one enquiry report, it has been directed that in case an application for an enquiry from a higher officer or outside the district/range is required, the same shall be sent for further enquiry only after approval of Director General of Police or the Punjab Government. In the case in hand, admittedly, the Deputy Inspector General, Jalandhar Range, had marked the enquiry to the 3rd investigating officer i.e. Superintendent of Police (Detective), Kapurthala vide order dated 25.3.2008 i.e. prior to the order passed by the Director General of Police, Punjab. Be that as it may, it is the consistent case set up by the investigating agency that there was animus between the parties as has been noticed in the above portion of the order. There has been a substantial delay till this date i.e. FIR having been lodged on 27.11.2007. It is now the admitted case of the respondent-State that there are investigation reports which are contrary to each other. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in particular the delay that has already been caused; the contradictory investigation reports, two of which indicate innocence of the Crl. Misc. No. M-25979 of 2008 [6] petitioners; the final report also indicates that investigation has not yet been concluded and Station House Officer, Police Station, Nakodar, would be required to effect the arrest of any other accused whose name comes to surface, this petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions :- “(i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required; (ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” This order shall enure till 10 days after the petitioners receive a notice of filing of final report u/s 173, Cr.P.C. within which period, they would be at liberty to apply for regular bail. The petitioners would surrender their passports, in case they possess, within one week from today to the Station House Officer of concerned police station. A copy of the order be sent to the Director General of Police, Punjab so that appropriate directions are issued so as to remove the Crl. Misc. No. M-25979 of 2008 [7] confusion in the investigation that has already taken place till now. The Director General of Police, Punjab, would be required to take a decision on the issue within 45 days from today. (AJAI LAMBA) December 08, 2008 JUDGE avin