Jagroop Singh vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

Petitioner seeks the cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the accused/respondents 5 to 8. Circumstances giving rise to this petition can be briefly summarised as follows :

Petitioner/complainant made a report to the police making allegations that the culprits mentioned therein (including the petitioner) had assaulted by heavy stick and caused various injuries. For the purpose of decision, it is not necessary to give the details of the whole incident thus reported. On getting that report, a First Information Report was registered at the police station. There is material to show that the First Information Report was initially registered in respect of the offence punishable under section 308 read with section 149 and other minor sections of the I.P.C. However, there is material to show that report came to be torned and burnt and another report was recorded to show that offence registered was under sections 323/325/148/149 IPC at a later stage.

The papers before me indicate that respondents 5 to 8 were initially arrested in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 323/325/148/149 IPC. Later on they were released on bail.

The papers before me further indicate that petitioner/complainant made a grievance that First Information Report that was initially registered for the offence under section 308 IPC read with section 149 IPC and other sections, came to be torned off from the register of the First Information Report, and it was substituted by registration of another offence as mentioned above. According to the petitioner, the Deputy Superintendent of Police having control over that police station, has committed such manipulation of the record in order to help the accused. On submitting this complaint, the Superintendent of Police (Special) held an enquiry on the direction issued to him by the Senior Superintendent of Police. The outcome of the enquiry is reproduced in para 3 of the petition. It is as follows :

"It is clear from the investigation that S. Gurmel Singh, Dy. S.P. under his influence removed the pages of Roznamcha wherein FIR No. 61 dated 29.7.1997 u/ss. 308, 323, 148, 149 IPC was registered and burnt them and put the new pages at their place after reducing the offence. In this was Sh. Gurmel Singh, Dy. S.P., Inspector Anokh Singh, HC Gurcharan Singh and MHC Sukha Singh have conspired with the accused and, changed the record and have helped the accused openly. They have committed gross violation of the discipline. They have reduced the image of the police. So strict action against them is recommended."

In the context that it may be mentioned that in the written statement filed by the State, the contents of para 3 of the petition are admitted to be correct. In other words the extract of the enquiry report mentioned in para 3 is an admitted position by the State. Respondent No. 8, however, disputed the correctness of the contents of para 3 of the petition, but concludes that since these allegations were against the police officers the respondent No. 8 has no concern with the outcome of the enquiry.

In the set of these circumstances, the offence under section 308 IPC was later on added to the complaint mentioned above. As a result of that, steps were sought to be taken for the arrest of the respondents 5 to 8. It may be recalled here that respondents 5 to 8 were already enlarged on bail because at that time the major offence against them was under section 325 read with 149 IPC. Since their arrest was now expected in view of the major section 308 IPC having been applied to the case, these respondents 5 to 8 moved an application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for obtaining the anticipatory bail. The Additional Sessions Judge granted them anticipatory bail. On reading the order passed by him, it clearly appears that he granted the anticipatory bail mainly on two grounds visavis.

i) These accused (respondents 5 to 8) have already been released on bail while the occurrence was found to have been registered under sections 323/325/148/149 IPC after they surrendered in the court.

ii) No further investigation was pending which would necessitate the custody of the accused (respondents 5 to 8).

That order dated 12.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot is now challenged by the petitioner.

The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that police officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and below him are deeply interested in the accused and that is quite evident from the enquiry report given by the Superintendent of Police (Special) which indicates that these police officers had gone to the extent of even tampering and fabricating the record of the police station. The second thrust of the argument is that respondents 5 to 8 thus in connivance with the police officer mislead the court to believe that offence was registered in respect of minor offences. On this misrepresentation they secured the bail by showing that offence under sections 325/149 and other minor sections of the IPC. It was submitted that anticipatory bail has been obtained on the basis of the position that bail had already been granted in respect of minor offence. That has been thus obtained by playing fraud on the court, and such grant of bail should not be allowed to continue further because very basis of obtaining anticipatory bail is suppression of material facts and fabrication of record.

The counsel for the respondents 5 to 8 submitted that respondents 5 to 8 were arrested for the offence punishable under section 325 IPC, and were released on bail after taking into consideration that they were entitled to bail. It was further submitted that grant of anticipatory bail has been for good reasons because the custody of these accused was not necessary for further investigation, and there was nothing to indicate that accused had misused their liberty. It was further submitted that bail thus granted once, should not be cancelled unless there is material to show that subsequent to the grant of bail, accused have committed some act that would justify cancellation of bail. It was further submitted that even in case of registration of an offence under section 308 IPC the accused would have been entitled to bail in the set of facts in this case.

In my opinion the basic question involved in this case is as to whether discretionary relief of anticipatory bail should be allowed to continue if it turns out that it has been obtained on the wrong assumptions by the learned Judge, and on suppression and fabrication of the facts by the accused. As mentioned above, on the basis of report made by the complainant, an offence was registered in the register of First Information Report. The FIR that was initially recorded and registered under section 308 read with 149 IPC and other sections was removed from the record, and in its place another First Information Report was recorded showing that offence was under section 325/149 IPC and other minor sections. The enquiry report submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Special) has already been reproduced above, and it clearly indicates that the police officers have conspired with the accused and changed the record as mentioned above. A serious action against these officers was recommended. The State admits the correctness of the said report. Obviously, therefore, there is enough material to infer that there was fabrication of record. It also can be safely said that fabrication of record of the police station would not be possible without the help of the police officers. There is also room to infer that such fabrication of record was for the purpose of helping the accused, and was at their instance. These are, however, my prima facie observations on the basis of material before me. I would make it clear that these observations are limited to the disposal of this case only, and should not be considered in the departmental enquiry that may be initiated against these police officers, or in the course of disposal of case arising out of this matter.

The tenor of impugned order of anticipatory bail clearly indicates that Additional Sessions Judge was inclined to grant anticipatory bail on one of the main grounds that accused/respondents No. 5 to 8 were already released on bail for the offence under sections 325/149 etc. Obviously, that grant of bail was based on the substituted FIR as mentioned above. In other words grant of bail in that case was obtained by misrepresentation and by fabrication of record. The grant of bail previously has been considered by the learned Judge as one of the strongest factor for granting of anticipatory bail to respondents 5 to 8/accused. In my opinion question would be whether bail obtained by fabrication and forgery of record should be allowed to continue.

The counsel for respondents 5 to 8 placed reliance in case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 1993(1) RCR 600 and argued that cancellation of bail is guided by the principles laid down in that case. In that case in para 11 of the report Their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the case of Raghubir Singh (1987 Criminal Law Journal 157), and enumerated the grounds for cancellation of bail. It is not necessary to reproduce all those grands mentioned therein. The thrust of the argument by the respondents'' lawyer is that in the present case none of the grounds justifying the cancellation of bail were spelt out. In my opinion the observations made by Their Lordships in that case should be considered in proper context. The question before their Lordships was whether the bail granted to the accused under section 167(2) Cr. P.C on the ground of non submission of chargesheet within specified period, can be cancelled after the presentation of the chargesheet. Similar position had arisen in case of Raghubir Singh which has been considered by Their Lordships while enumerating the grounds for cancellation of bail. Therefore, it is clear that the point involved in that case was altogether different thone before me. Moreover, in my opinion, the grounds enumerated in that case, is not exhaustive list of the grounds on which the bail can be cancelled. In a given case, if it turns out that bail has been obtained by method of suppression of facts or by fabricating the record, as in this case, it can be considered as one of the ground for cancellation bail. The reason is that it should not appear that the court''s sanction could be obtained to an order which has been procured by adopting unlawful means and methods. If such bail orders are allowed to continue simply on the ground that no harm has been caused since the release of the accused on bail, or their detention is no more required, that would give a wrong message that the bail order though obtained on false or fabricated material, becomes invulnerable by simply passage of time. The continuation of such bail order shakes very faith in the system. In my opinion, therefore, anticipatory bail granted in this case deserves to be set aside. It would be altogether different aspect as to whether the accused would be still entitled to bail if they had approached the court for getting the bail in case under section 308 IPC. I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the bail that may or may not be available to the accused in a case under section 308 IPC. The only limited question before me for consideration was whether in set of circumstances mentioned above the anticipatory bail should be allowed to continue. In my opinion it would be against the judicial propriety to allow to continue such bail order. I, therefore, allow this petition. The anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 5 to 8 by order dated 12.9.1997 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in bail application No. 212 dated 2.9.1997 (FIR No. 61 dated 29.7.1997, Police Station City Faridkot) is hereby stands cancelled.