Gurmukh Singh vs State of Punjab

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 25986 and 31456 of 2010 as both the applications for grant of anticipatory bail have been moved in the same case being FIR No. 61 dated 1.12.2009 under Sections 306, 341, 342, 201, 120B IPC, Police Station, Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, Punjab.

According to the case of the prosecution, Roor Singh was illegally kept in police station on 4.9.2009 and was later arrested on 5.9.2009 in FIR No. 43 dated 5.9.2009 under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 420, 120B IPC. He died in police custody on 5.9.2009 at 11 PM. Medical examination was conducted and death was found to be on account of poison. Enquiry was conducted u/s 174(1A) by a Judicial Magistrate who concluded that death was in police custody and was unnatural. Report of the Magistrate is dated 16.11.2009. This led to registration of FIR on 1.12.2009. Thereafter, in view of a newspaper report dated 27.11.2009 to the effect that Administration was trying to shield the guilty policemen, this Court took suo motu congnizance in the matter on 28.11.2009 and a statement was made on behalf of the State that investigation was handed over to the IGP (Crime) who gave his report dated 2.8.2010 which implicated among others the Petitioners Gurmukh Singh and Ajit Singh who were posted at Police Station at the relevant time. According to the said report, the Petitioners were responsible for not taking necessary precaution as per direction of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, on account of which the accused possibly committed suicide by consuming poison in the police lock up. In view of the said report, offence earlier registered u/s 304 IPC was converted to Section 306 IPC. The connected matter in which suo motu cognizance was taken by this Court being CWP No. 18326 of 2009 has also been heard alongwith these petitions and is being disposed of by a separate order. Therein, it was held that opinion of the Investigating Officer that it could be a case of suicide cannot be accepted as final and investigation by CBI was necessary in the matter.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that offence against the Petitioners was at best u/s 304A IPC.

Learned Counsel for the State and the complainant opposed the prayer or anticipatory bail. Learned Counsel for the State also submitted that inspite of best efforts of the investigating agency, the Petitioners could not be apprehended and are absconding.

Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that offence was not of suicide but of homicide and mysterious death in police custody could not be taken lightly. Onus was on concerned police officers to explain their position. Arrest of the Petitioners was necessary for finding out the truth and to prevent evidence being destroyed. It is neither a case of false implication nor nature of offence is non serious. Contention that case may be only of negligence u/s 304A may not be accepted at this stage. Vide order of this Court dated 11.11.2010 in CWP No. 18326 of 2009, the State was directed to effect custodial interrogation of Inspector Gurmukh Singh after his arrest.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any final opinion on merits, we are of the view that case for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioners is not made out.

The applications are dismissed.