Lachhman Dass vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

These two applications for the grant of a anticipatory bail have been filed by Lachhman Dass and Mangat Singh Gill petitioners, since they apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No. RC2(S)/96/SIC/IV/CBI/SPE/New Delhi under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since these two applications relate to the same FIR, I dispose them of by this common order.

Two persons by names Jatinder Pehal and Randip Singh were killed on 25.10.1994 while they were in the custody of the police. According to the police these two persons, who were accused in case, were taken for effecting certain recoveries, and while returning certain unknown persons attacked the police with fire arms and in this process these two persons sustained fire arm injuries and died. But Ishwarti Devi mother of Jatinder Pehal, feeling that a false case was put forward by the police, filed CWP No. 3921 of 1995 on the file of this Court for a direction that the killing of the said persons may be investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation. The High Court by its order dated 27.11.1995 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct the enquiry. A case has been registered under the abovesaid FIR against Nar Singh DassInspector, Puran SinghUpper Grade Constable, Hoshiar Singh, Sube Singh, Ramesh Chander and Hari Pal, all constables, attached to the CIA Jind. The petitioners contend the they are innocent, that there is no incriminating evidence against them, that they are not even named in the FIR and that in view of the enmity against them they are likely to be implicated in this case and, therefore, seek anticipatory bail. Petitioner Lachhman Dass had moved the Sessions Court, Ambala, for anticipatory bail but, the learned Sessions Judge, declined his request. By these two separate petitions they moved this Court for anticipatory bail and this Court while ordering notice, stayed the arrest of these two petitioners. The petitioners were directed to join investigation. The CBI has filed replies opposing these two petitions.

It is contended on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation that the fact that Jatinder Pehal and Randip Singh were killed while they were in police custody in not disputed, but, it is only alleged that they were killed when some unknown persons attacked the police party with the arms. Learned Counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation contends that the report from the Forensic Laboratory shows that the deceased were killed from close range, and this, coupled with the fact that there was no bullet injury or mark or damages to the vehicle in which they were travelling, and also the fact that there was no injury to any of the police officials who accompanied the deceased, will show that the contention of the concerned police officials, who accompanied the deceased at the time of their death, cannot be true.

So far as the contention that the names of the petitioners herein are no found in the FIR is concerned, learned counsel for the CBI contends that the investigation in this case shows the involvement of the petitioners herein.

So far as Lachhman Dass, the petitioner in Cr. M. 9085M1996 is concerned, the learned counsel for the CBI points out that when Lachhman Dass was the DGP he purposely got Inspector Nar Singh Dass transferred from the Vigilance to the CIA Jind on 24.8.1991 i.e. a couple of months prior to the occurrence. Nar Singh Dass has been named in the FIR of the present case. He also contends that in September, 1994 Lachhman Dass also got the supervision of the case in which the deceased namely, Jatinder Pehal and Randip Singh were involved as accused to the Superintendent of Police of Vigilance, who had worked under him while he (Lachhman Dass) was also working in the Railways, which is not done normally. It is further alleged that the then DGP Lachhman Dass wanted the Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Nar Singh Dass to meet him with the file involving the accused Jatinder Pehal and Randip Singh on 24.8.1994, and that he had even talked with the Superintendent of Police Vigilance on 25.10.1994 over the phone. It was the day of the occurrence in question. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation contends that though, the then DGP Lachhman Dass has not been named in the FIR material has been collected to show his complicity in the conspiracy to put an end to the life of the deceased persons and that further investigation is being carried on. The learned counsel for the CBI also contends that the statements of Puran Singh and Harpal have also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with regard to this offence.

So far as the other petitioner Mangat Singh Gill (for short M.S. Gill) is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the CBI is that he is the person who registered false cases against Dhan Ram and Satbir as if they were involved in the killing of these two persons Jatinder Pehal and Randip Singh. According to the learned counsel for the CBI request has been made to withdraw these cases and that no chargesheet has been filed.

I have also called for the case diary from the counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation and gone through the same.

This is a matter where two persons in police custody were killed. The usual plea of the police that they were killed in an encounter with the police themselves is not put forward in this case. Some other persons are stated to have attacked the police party, accompanying Jatinder Pehal and Randip Singh with fire arms and these two persons are stated to have died as a result. There is sufficient ground for coming to the prima facie view that cases have been falsely registered with regard to these killings. The police, who are supposed to be the guardian of the life and liberty to the citizens have allegedly prematurely terminated the lives of two persons. The police cannot assume the role of executioners shedding their role as investigators. Serious allegations have been made against persons who have occupied the highest position in the police hierarchy; and the persons who had served under him. It is in the interest of justice, that the investigation is carried on in a fair and impartial manner, as otherwise the poor and helpless citizens of the country will lose faith in the very set up of democracy.

But, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case where the petitioners should be granted the relief of anticipatory bail. Though, I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the CBI that this being a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code should not exercise its powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case and in view of the allegations made against the petitioners and on a perusal of the case diary, the petitioners herein should not be granted the relief of anticipatory bail. The two petitioners herein were police officials, one of them having occupied the highest post in the police service. The other was a SubInspector who allegedly registered a false case as if the deceased were killed in an encounter between some unknown persons and the police. It is seen that petitioner M.S. Gill who joined the service as constable and gradually rose to the position as SubInspector was reduced in rank from that of SubInspector to Assistant SubInspector and then to Head Constable and was finally compulsorily retired. Though, the writ petition filed by M.S. Gill quashing the compulsory retirement was dismissed, he was later on taken on service on 5.1.1995 as Assistant SubInspector on his representation.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the petitioners who had been police officials and who had occupied responsible posts will not either abscond on interfere with the investigation, and that they have also joined the investigation in pursuance of the interim order of this Court. But I cannot also brush aside the possibility that the petitioners, having been in police service, can also take advantage of their positions and cause hindrance of the fair and proper investigation of this case. Therefore, the fact that the petitionerLachhman Dass was the then DGP or that the other petitioner. M.S. Gill was a SubInspector of Police will not be a point in their favour.

Of course the counsel for the petitionerLachhman Dass, the then DGP contends that he is sought to be falsely implicated in this case because of his enmity with Mr. Bansi Lal, Hon''ble the present Chief Minister since he did not oblige him. Similarly, M.S. Gill alleges that there is also enmity against him. But I cannot lose sight of the fact that this is not a case which was instituted against the police of officials after Mr. Bansi Lal became the Chief Minister. Long prior to that the mother of Jatinder Pehal had filed a petition in this Court and it was on the direction of this Court on 27.11.1995 that the Central Bureau of Investigation has taken up the investigation in this case. Therefore, the contention that in view of the enmity against the petitioners, they are sought to be falsely implicated in the case cannot be easily accepted.

Having considered the allegations against the petitioner, and having gone through the case diary, and considering the positions occupied by the petitioners as police officials and the possibility of their interference in the investigation of this case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case the where the petitioners should be granted the relief of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly both these petitions are dismissed.

Petitions dismissed.