Daya Singh Dilbar vs U.T.Chandigarh

Ujagar Singh, J.

This petition is for the release of the petitioner on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the case First Information Report No. 25 dated 6.2.1986, under sections 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 and under sections 124A, 153A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, of Police Station, Sector, 11, Chandigarh, the petitioner having been unsuccessful before the lower Court vide its order dated 11.3.1986. The relevant portion of the First Information Report is as under :

"An Akhand Path was arranged on the University Campus at the Panjab University, Chandigarh by the Sarbat Sewa Society to celebrate the birthday of Shri Guru Gobind Singh. The stage was managed by Sh. Balwinder Singh Dhak, a Research Scholar in the Department of Political Science, who acted as the Secretary. There was a gathering of 600 or 700 persons. The time was between 10.00 a.m. to 2.15 p.m. on 6.2.1986.

While reciting Kirtan and narrating the life history of Guru Gobind Singh through Wars (ballads), Daya Singh Dilbar said that only Guru Gobind Singh had a right to be called as the Father of the Nation as he fought a number of battles and won all of them; that Sikhs neither are afraid of anybody nor they intimidate anyone, but if anybody attempts to attack them, then they do not spare him. He further said that the act of Gen. Dyer at Jalianwala Bagh was avenged by Udhanm Singh after 21 years and in no case time was allowed to pass by more then five months (reference being made about Indira Gandhi assassination). In the end, he said that similar functions are being arranged on February 6 in Gurdwara Section 7 and in Guru Gobind Singh College. ... ... ... ... ... ..."

The petitioner filed Cr. M. 1712/1986 on 19.3.1986 Vide order dated 7.4.1986, the same was dismissed by S.S. Dewan, J. In that order it is recorded that the petitioner, alongwith others, is said to have addressed a gathering of students on the campus of the Panjab University, Chandigarh that, "Hindustan became independent in 1947, but the Sikhs are still slaves; that the National Flag is not their flag and their flag is `Kesri'' and that they will gain independence by force because Hindu Government is keeping them as slaves." The learned Judge was of the opinion that a perusal of the Police diaries shows that the investigation so far conducted had revealed the complicity of the petitioner in the case right from the beginning, whether or not the accusation is correct is not to be seen at that stage and thus the petition was dismissed.

The petitioner filed Cr. M7609M/1986 on 10.12.1986 and vide order dated 9.2.1987, S.S. Sodhi, J., dismissed the same and gave a direction to the trial Court to fix the trial of his case as expeditiously as possible and if possible, to frame the charge and commence the trial within the month of February, 1987 and to complete the same as early as possible thereafter.

The petitioner yet filed another bail application (vide Cr. M. 3441M/1987) which ultimately came up for hearing before Pritpal Singh, J. (as the learned Judge then was) and vide order dated 25.5.1987, it was held that the trial Court has fixed 27.5.1987 as the date for framing of the charge and in these circumstances, there was no ground for bail and with those observations in view, the bail application was dismissed.

This petition being the fourth one in the series, has been filed for the same purpose and the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the orders passed by the trial Court on each and every date and the same have been reproduced in the petition itself. For convenience and ready reference, those orders are reproduced below:

"Present : Sh. Anand Swaroop, Sr. Advocate assisted by Sh. S.K. Sood, PP.

Accused Daya Singh with his counsel B.S. Guliani.

This case has been received by way of transfer. It be registered. The case is fixed for further proceedings. The learned parties'' counsel are agreed that it is ot be adjourned for arguments on charge. It is accordingly adjourned to 3.9.1987 for arguments on the point of charge. No earlier date is possible to Anand Sarup P.P. and also on account of heavy work having been already fixed during the intervening period. Moreover, I shall be on special leave for 7 days during this period."

Camp at District Jail,

Burail.

Sd/ Designated Court,

Chandigarh. 30.7.1987.

State v. Daya Singh etc.

Present : Anand Swaroop Assisted by Sh. S.K. Sood, PP.

Accused with his counsel Sh. B.S. Guliani.

The accused has moved an application for supplying of the true transcript and true translation of the shorthand notes. Copy supplied. For reply of the application and also for arguments, case to come up on 30.9.1987.

Sd/ Addl Designated Court,

Chandigarh. 3.9.1987.

Present : Nemo

File has been taken up today as I will be on special casual leave from 24.9.1987 to 30.9.1987. The case will be adjourned to 24.10.1987 for the proceedings for which it is already fixed. An intimation will accordingly be sent to the all concerned.

Sd/ Addl. Designated Court,

23.9.1987.

Present : Nemo

File taken up today. As 24.10.1987, the date fixed in this case has been declared as holiday, the case is adjourned to 31.10.1987 for the purpose for which it was already fixed. All concerned be informed.

Sd/ Addl. Designated Court

17.10.1987.

Present : Sh. Anand Swaroop, PP, assisted by Sh. S.K. Sood.

Accused in custody with Sh. B.S. Guliani, Advocate.

The court time is over as the whole time is consumed in hearing the arguments on the question of charge in case State v. Varinderpal Singh etc. to come up for arguments on 14.11.1987.

Sd/ Addl. Designated Court

31.10.1987.

Present : Sh. S.K. Sood for the State

Accused with B.S. Guliani

Sh. B.S. Guliani, learned counsel for the accused requests for adjournment, for arguments on charge. Learned P.P. has no objection to the same. The case is accordingly adjourned to 21.11.1987 for arguments on charge.

Sd/ Addl. Judge,

Designated Court,

Chandigarh. 14.11.1987.

Present : Shri Anand Sarup, Special PP assisted by Shri S.K. Sood Accused on bail with Sh. B.S. Guliani.

Sh. B.S. Khoji, counsel for Bimal Khalsa accused has moved an application in another case State v. Bhupinder Singh etc. for dropping the proceedings against him. The said case has been adjourned to 19.12.1987. The learned PP states that the same question is involved in the present case also.

Sd/ Addl. Judge Designated

Court Chandigarh

21.11.1987........"

From the orders, it is clear that inspite of the order dated 9.2.1987, indicating that the trial Court was directed to frame a charge and to commence trial within the month of February, 1987 and to complete the same as early as possible thereafter, the case was received by the Addl. Judge Designated Court on 30.7.1987 and since then, the case was being adjourned from time to time and ultimately it was fixed for 19.12.1987 and thereafter it is intimated that the case was adjourned to 3.1.1988. Till then no charge was framed. There only two eye witness apart from ASI Bajrang Pal, CID, Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the first bail application was dismissed. The order dismissing the first bail application does not run consistent with the First Information Report. He further states that the statement of Dharamjit, who has been introduced as an eyewitness cannot be reconciled with what is recorded in the First INformation Report by the ASI. The counsel further relies on the delay in putting up the challan, as well as in completing the trial of the case.

Shri Anand Swaroop, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently urges that the first bail application was decided on merits and that order cannot be challenged in this Court. About the delay, his argument is that in such cases delay is immaterial and since this case was connected with another case, it had to be adjourned from time to time. He relies upon Raghbir Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149.

I have considered the arguments. The matter of delay has been discussed as under by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the said authority:

"The Investigating agency cannot, therefore, be blamed for the slow progress that they made in investigating a case of this nature. It is true that there were what appeared to be lulls in investigation for fairly long spells but we are unable to see anything sinister in the lulls. We have to remember that investigation of this case was not the only task for the investigating agency. There must have been other cases and tasks. In our country, the police are not only in charge of the investigation into crimes, but they are also in charge of law and order. We have to take into account the extraordinary law and order. We have to take into account the extraordinary law and order situation obtaining in various parts of the country necessitating the placing of the great additional burden on the police. We are satisfied that such delay as there was in the investigation of this case was not wanton and that it was the outcome of the nature of the case and the general situation prevailing in the country........"

It was further observed in that case that the accused therein had not made any serious protest about any delay and the following observation was made :

"........After the charge sheet was filed, we notice that atleast on two occasions the prosecuting agency expressed an anxiety to have the case disposed of as expeditiously as possible. We find from the ordersheet of the learned Special Judge that on 19.12.1985 the Public Prosecutor filed a petition before him requesting expeditious trial of the case as it was a case of a special importance. From the ordersheet we find that on January 9, 1986, another petition was filed by the Public Prosecutor again requesting that an early date may be fixed for the speedy disposal of the case. (quashing of proceedings was held to be unfair, but trial was directed to start soon and to proceed from day to day)".

I have considered the arguments of both the sides and find that in this case, the facts have no comparison with Raghbir Singh''s case (supra). In this case, the only alleged incriminating evidence is that of all the three witnesses. One of them is the ASI and the other two are the witnesses who attended the gathering in the Gurdwara on 6.2.1986. The petitioner is said to have made the incriminating speech while performing Kirtan by way of ballads. There is no other material to be brought on the record. The names of the two witnesses are not mentioned in the First Information Report. In these circumstances, the trial should not take long and can be finished within one or two hearings. When I had heard arguments on 4.1.1988, I reserved this to know about the orders passed by the trial Court on the last date of hearing.

It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that ultimately charge was framed by the trial Court on 8.1.1988 and the case is now fixed for prosecution evidence on 20.2.1988. The list of prosecution witnesses is not very long and the trial, if it starts on 20.2.1988, can be concluded within a month or so. It is expected that the trial Court will conclude the trial by the end of March, 1988.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail. The Criminal Miscellaneous stands disposed of accordingly.