AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 305 wordsI.S. Tiwana, J.
The petitioners are accused of offences under sections 212 and 216 Indian Penal Code, on the basis of statement made by one Raman Singh who is in the custody of police for commission of various offences. It is also the case of the prosecution that the above noted activity of the petitioners in harboring the proclaimed offenders amounted to offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. In order to support the above noted accusations, the police has recorded a statement of Sadhu Singh, Sarpanch of village Langiana under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
An affidavit of Sadhu Singh Sarpanch has been filed to say that, at no stage, he was aware of the fact that the police had recorded. any statement of his under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure. It was only 13.2.1987 that he came to know of this fact. According to this further averments in the affidavit. the case against the petitioners is totally false as he never deposed to the police anything in that regard.
Besides all this, it is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the light of Kuriakose Chacho v. State, AIR 1951. Travancore Cochin 90, that until the alleged proclaimed offenders are convicted of any offence, the petitioners cannot reasonably be prosecuted for offences under sections 212/216, Indian Penal Code.
Keeping in view of the above noted facts and circumstances and without expressing anything finally on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either side. I find that it is a fit case where bail should be granted to the petitioners. I order accordingly. Necessary bail bonds would be executed by the petitioners to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot.