Gursewak Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The prayer here is for the release of the petitioner Gursewak Singh on bail.

On April 10, 1987, a case u/s 302 read with Sections 34 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was registered agaiast the petitioner and three others. The petitioner was thereafter arrested on May 18, 1987 and has been in custody ever since. The co-accused of the petitioner had been arrested some days earlier.

The incident, in the present case, took place at night. The assailants being four unidentified young men. None of them was named in the first information report and their description there is of a very vague and.general kind. Further, there is no mention of any identification parade having been held or of the accused having refused to participate in it and as mentioned earlier, it was over a month after the incident that they came to be arrested.

When the present petition for bail came up for hearing on October 30, 1987, notice was ordered to be issued to the Advocate-General, Punjab, for November 10, 1987, on which date it was adjourned to November 20, 1987, for the investigating officer to file an affidavit to explain the delay in the submission of the challan against the petitioner. No such affidavit was, however, filed on that date, that is, November 20, 1987 on the plea that the Station House Officer concerned had gone out to Faridkot. This officer was accordingly directed to be present in Court today along with the requisite affidavit.

It would indeed be straining one''s credibility to accept as valid what purports to be the justification set forth in the affidavit now filed to explain the delay that has occurred in the case against the petitioner being put in Court. It is stated in this affidavit that "the challan of all the accused mentioned above would be submitted in Court within 20 days after obtaining the pistol from police station Bagha Purana and the same would be then sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for examination." As regards obtaining this pistol from police station Bagha Purana, the affidavit goes on to say that it "still cannot be obtained from that police station due to some administrative reasons". What these administrative reasons are, is not spelt out, nor is there any indication, when this pistol would eventually be made available for being sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, for examination, Further the affidavit states that empty cartridges recovered from the spot are being sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, for examination. There is no mention of what prevented the sending of these cartridges for examination earlier. It is apparent, therefore, that the affidavit contains no credible explanation of the delay in the submission of the challan nor indeed, is there any indication contained therein as to the date by which it would in fact be filed in Court.

Where, as in our country, the rule of law operates, it is incumbent upon the investigating agency to proceed with its investigation into the crime with utmost expedition which necessarily implies that the case against an accused, particularly when he is in custody, should be submitted to court at the earliest to enable the trial to proceed and conclude without, any undue delay. The fact that now by virtue of the provisions of Section 20 of the Terrorists & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the words ''90 days'' in Sub-section (2)(a)(i) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been substituted by the words ''one year'' for the purposes of this Act, it cannot be taken as a licence to the police or the investigating agency to hold in custody a person accused of an offence under the Act without trial for a period up to a year by simply putting off filing of the challan against him for such period. The spirit of the law in bold letters proclaims that every endeavour should be made by the investigating agency to complete its task and to submit the case for trial at the eailiest. This being so, it would clearly be open to the court while considering the prayer for bail by the person detained to see how the investigation is proceeding. If it is then revealed that the investigating agency is merely treating it as a means to keep the under-trial in detention without further ado, the court must forthwith release the person detained, on bail or otherwise as it deems appropriate. Any impression that the provisions of the Act permit or sanction detention of an under-trial up to a period of one year without anything more, must be categorically dispelled as being wholly misconceived and contrary to law.

Coming back to the present case, it is apparent that no plausible explanation is forthcoming to account for the state of investigation being, as revealed in the affidavit filed and what is more it is obvious that there is little likelihood of the challan against the petitioner being put in Court at an early date. This being so, the petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot.