Manjit Kaur vs State of Punjab

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.—It is a unique case of high handedness on the part of the police to arrest and lodge in jail an infirm and old lady of

70 years who was granted bail by the learned Court of competent jurisdiction. Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner,

Manjit Kaur, wife of Charanjit Singh, resident of House No. 128, Aman Nagar, Jalandhar, who has been booked for having committed the

offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 364 and 365, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 217, dated 30.12.2012, registered at Police

Station, Maqsudan, District Jalandhar.

The brief facts of the case are that Surinder Kumar, father of Inderjit Kaur, informed the police that on 6.12.2012, at 9.30 a.m., his daughters,

namely, Neetu Singh and Inderjit Kaur, were present at the house. Inderjit Kaur left the house, but did not come back till 30.12.2012, the day on

which the matter was reported to the police. He (complainant) expressed suspicion on Amrik Singh, son of Gulzar Singh, resident of Raipur

Rasool. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 365, IPC. During investigation, Manjit Kaur, who is

mother-in-law of Amrik Singh, was arrested on 17.1.2013 and was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, vide his

detailed order dated 23.1.2013 (Annexure P-8).

On 8.3.2013, the complainant, Surinder Kumar, suffered a supplementary statement in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., to the effect that Inderjit

Kaur was abducted by Amrik Singh and his co-accused with an intention to kill her, therefore, the offence punishable u/s 364, IPC, was added in

the FIR and the petitioner, Manjit Kaur was re-arrested on 15.6.2013.

Learned counsel contends that once the petitioner was granted regular bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction in this very case, and if some

new offence was added, in that eventuality, the police could have arrested the petitioner only after obtaining permission from the Court. He further

submits that it was brought to the notice of the investigating officer, SI Pritam Singh of Police Station, Maqsudan, Police District Jalandhar (Rural),

that the alleged detenue was alive and she had left her house with her own free will. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on

6.12.2012, Inderjit Kaur had given a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), that she had left her house with her

own free will and no one had abducted her. On 10.12.2012, yet another representation was made by Inderjit Kaur, but no action was taken on

the said representations. He further submits that Inderjit Kaur had filed a petition u/s 482, Cr.P.C., before this Court seeking protection to her life

and liberty, but the same was withdrawn on 21.12.2012 with permission to pursue her representations presented to the higher police officers. He

further submits that the alleged detenue is still present before this Court, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the ingredients of

Section 364, IPC, were attracted in the present case. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner for second time for the offence punishable u/s 364,

IPC, is illegal.

Learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the petitioner was arrested for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 365,

IPC, and was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, vide order dated 23.1.2013. He further submits that the

complainant made a supplementary statement in terms of Section 161, Cr.P.C., disclosing that Inderjit Kaur was seen in the company of the

petitioner and her co-accused and she (Inderjit Kaur) might have been killed. Therefore, the offence punishable u/s 364, IPC, was added and the

petitioner was re-arrested. However, he submits that no permission from the Court was sought before her arrest for second time.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that Inderjit Kaur was abducted

with the intention to kill her.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

The alleged detenue, Inderjit kaur, is present in the Court. Her statement has been recorded separately by this Court wherein she has

specifically stated that on 6.12.2012 she had left the house of her father with her own free will; no one induced or pressurized her to leave the

house of her father; she went to Shimla and still residing there; and that no one had attempted to kill her during the said period.

It is apposite to mention here that the case was taken up at the first call at about 11.00 a.m. and the parents of Inderjit Kaur along with their

counsel, Mr.. Mohd Yousaf, appeared before this Court and prayed that they be permitted to talk to Inderjit Kaur. At the asking of the Court,

Inderjit Kaur sat with her parents in the Court room on the chairs meant for litigants and general public and had conversation for about 11/2 hours

and now the case has been taken up in the post-lunch session and thereafter the statement of Inderjit Kaur was recorded in the presence of her

parents and their counsel Mr. Mohd Yousaf.

The petitioner, who is concededly aged about 70 years, was granted bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction at Jalandhar. It appears that to

put pressure on the petitioner and her co-accused, the offence punishable u/s 364, IPC, was added later on with a mala fide intention. When

Inderjit Kaur had submitted various representations to the police officers and she even filed a petition before this Court seeking protection to her

life and liberty, therefore, it did not lie in the mouth of the investigating officer to say that the alleged detenue, Inderjit Kaur, was abducted by the

accused with an intention to kill her. The investigating officer had gone so callous that he re-arrested the old lady of 70 years, in spite of the grant of

bail by the court, by adding the offence punishable u/s 364, IPC.

In Gheesa and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan, , the Rajasthan High Court dealt with the question that when an accused person has been

released on bail, in what circumstances, can he be re-arrested, and observed as under:

...The provisions for this purpose are Section 437(5) and Section 439(5) Cr.P.C. Once, a person has been directed to be released on bail either

by a Magistrate or a Court of Session or by this Court, then only the Court which has directed that the accused person should be released on bail,

can order that the accused person should be re-arrested and sent to custody. There is no provision under the Code of Criminal Procedure for the

Police arresting the accused person after being released on bail merely because, the facts after investigation disclose some other offences, which

were not made out at the time the accused person was released on bail. If such a power is to be given to the Police, then it will be always possible

for the Police to add an offence say u/s 307, IPC and arrest a person who has been released on bail for the offences under Sections 331, 333 or

325, IPC etc. Liberty of an individual cannot be made to depend upon some tricks which the Police can play in the matter of adding offences to a

particular set of facts and circumstances. It is the court alone, which can deal with the matter of cancellation of bail after it has been granted by it.

In Motilal and others v. The State of Rajasthan, 1987 RCC 347, it has been categorically held that when a person has been arrested on

account of allegations made in the FIR and released on bail, the position will not change simply by adding a new section of non-bailable offence

nor the Police can re-arrest him.

In Jagbir Singh Vs. State and another, it has been held that an accused could not be arrested without taking prior permission of the Court, after

he had been allowed anticipatory bail and new offence added in the FIR.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the ratio of the judgments cited in the preceding paras, this

case requires thorough probe. This Court is of the considered opinion that a case should be registered against the erring police officers involved in

this case as also the persons who have made false statement before the police for implicating the petitioner and her co-accused in a false and

baseless case. It is expected that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), shall order for registration of a case under the relevant

provisions of the Indian Penal Code for falsely implicating the innocent persons and illegal re-arrest of the petitioner.

Adjourned to 19.09.2013, for awaiting the report from the concerned police officer.

In the meantime, the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Manjit Kaur, wife of Charanjit Singh, resident of House No. 128, Aman

Nagar, Jalandhar, is allowed. She is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the investigation/trial of the present case, subject to her

furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Area Judicial Magistrate,

Jalandhar. The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order and a copy of the statement of Inderjit Kaur of even date to the

Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (Rural), Jalandhar, for compliance at the earliest by any convenient mode.