Harinder Singh vs U.T., Chandigarh

Avneesh Jhingan, J

The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.

These are three petitions emanating out of FIR No. 102, dated 31st May, 2020 under Sections 452, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC')

(Sections 120-B and 212 of IPC added later on) and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station South Sector 34,

Chandigarh. Two are filed by Harinder Singh and Bahadur Singh for anticipatory bail and one by Sewak for regular bail.

FIR is at the instance of Arvind Singla (complainant) who is a liquor contractor and having vends in Chandigarh as well as in Punjab. His brother

Rakesh Singla is residing near his house. The complainant has been provided P.S.O. by the Punjab Police and there are private security guards at the

gate of his house. On 31st May, 2020 at about 5:30 P.M., four youngsters came and asked the security guards that they wanted to meet complainant.

When told that complainant was not at home they went away. Little later, a telephonic message was received from the mother of the complainant that

four boys have open fired at the house of Rakesh Singla. They tried to target Rakesh Singla who escaped by entering into the house and the boys fled

the scene in the car.

During the investigation, it transpired that shooting incident was conspired by gangster Lawrence Bishnoi who planned the attack to spread fear

among the business community. During investigation, 16 accused were nominated and various roles were attributed.

Mr. Preetinder S. Ahluwalia, appearing for the petitioner in CRM-M-18856-2020 argues that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Even as per the case

set up he was neither the shooter nor the planner; his name came in a disclosure statement; no recovery is to be made and the allegations are that he

arranged weapons whereas weapons were handed over by Bharam Dutt to the shooters. He contends that petitioner has joined the investigation and

answered the questionnaire given to him. He was nominated with the help of Section 120-B of IPC.

Mr. Ramandeep Singh Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M-25855-2020, submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated. He states

that vehicle owned by his father which was allegedly used for the incident has been released and apart from the disclosure statement, there is nothing

against the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Batth, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRM-M-25704-2020 submits that petitioner was named in the disclosure statement; there is no

other evidence; allegations are that he provided car to one Gurdeep Singh @ Babu; petitioner is behind bars since 3rd June, 2020; challan has been

presented and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.

Mr. Sukant Gupta, Additional P.P., U.T., Chandigarh relies upon pleadings of reply filed. He submits that the shooting incident was a deep rooted

conspiracy to spread fear among the business community in Chandigarh and Punjab thereby ensuring protection money from the businessmen. He

relies upon a flow chart drawn in the reply to submit that Lawrence Bishnoi was the master mind who in spite of being in Rajasthan Jail contacted

Deepu Banur who was in Ambala Jail. Thereafter, five shooters; two by Deepu Banur and three by Lawrence Bishnoi were selected to carry out the

attack. It was a well organized and planned act for which nominated persons did reiki, provided vehicles, arranged weapons for the shooters and

provided shelter after the shooting incident. He further submits that there is an eye-witness Iqlakh Khan, who was deputed as security guard at the

gate, he identified some of the shooters. Further, there is a CCTV footage available of the shooting incident. He submits that 17 empty cartridges

were recovered from the site. There are call details which co-relate some of the nominated accused. He, on instructions from SI Vijay Kumar,

submits that Harinder Singh and Bahadur Singh after grant of interim bail have joined the investigation but are not cooperating. He submits that five

nominated accused are at large and P.O. proceedings are pending against one of them, for this reason investigation could not be completed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners rebut the contention of learned State counsel by stating that incident is of May, 2020 till date apart from disclosure

statement there is no other evidence. The submission is that challan has been presented against the arrested persons. It is argued that the

apprehension of witnesses being influenced is baseless. The petitioners were named in the disclosure statement given by accused who is already

arrested. The further argument is that for an incident of no injury, a large net is made to include 16 nominated persons which makes the conspiracy

theory doubtful. They further submit that no call details are available vis-a-vis these petitioners.

The firing incident happened in Chandigarh and recovery of 17 empty cartridges are an indicator of the magnitude of the incident. It was by chance

that none was injured but that itself will not undermine the happening. The fact remains that in spite of passing of almost seven months, five of the

nominated accused have not been arrested which resulted in hampering the investigation.

From the pleadings, it is evident that in spite of the fact that certain persons were confined in Jail yet they were able to get mobile phones and use

WhatsApp to conspire and carry out such attack. The alleged roles of the petitioners of providing help for carrying out the attack cannot be under

estimated by their non-presence. Without the support the attack may not have been possible. There is recovery of mobile phone and one SIM card

from Deepu Banur which he chewed. As per learned counsel for the U.T., Chandigarh, the SIM card is to be sent to the lab for further analysis. It

would not be appropriate at this stage to dwell upon the evidentiary value of the disclosure statement. It would be pertinent to note that in these cases

Section 120-B IPC has been invoked. To complete the chain and to have a deeper probe, custodial interrogation of Harinder Singh and Bahadur Singh

is necessary.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that no recovery is to be made and that challans have presented for the arrested persons do not

enhance their case for bail. There are at least five co-accused who are at large, for the said reason, investigation is not concluded. The presentation of

challans for the arrested persons may not indicate finalization of their roles so long as investigation is being carried out. The grant of interim bail to

Harinder Singh and Bahadur Singh and their joining investigation has not served purpose as they are not cooperating in the investigation.

The Supreme Court in State Represented by the C.B.I. Versus Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, held as under:-

“We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a

suspect who is well ensconded with a favorable order under Section 438 if the code. In a case like this effective interrogation of suspected

person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed.

Succession such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulted by a pre-arrest bail during

the time he interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the oustodial

interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an

argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The court has to presume that responsible Police Officers would conduct

themselves in task of disintering offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.â€​

The petitioners may not have been named by any witnesses but the fact remains that as per the allegations leveled, they would be in a position to

influence other co-accused or the witnesses. In the facts of the present case, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary to take

investigation to its logical end.

The petitions are dismissed.

However, it is clarified that nothing stated hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Photocopy of this

order be placed in the files of connected petitions.