Murlidhar Sharma vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10419/M1998 (Rakesh Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and another) and Crl. Misc. No. 11032/M1998 (Murlidhar Sharma v. State of Punjab and another) arising out of one and the same case No. RC/SIH/1998/S/0005 dated 9.3.1998 CBI, Chandigarh, for the offences punishable under Section 364/120B IPC.

The facts relevant for the disposal of these two cases may be stated briefly, as under :

The petitioner, Murlidhar Sharma, resident of Jalalabad (W) District Ferozepur, had lodged FIR No. 32 on 15.6.1995 under Sections 363/366/376/502/120B IPC, alleging inter alia that his daughter Anita Rani was abducted and raped by accused Chander Pal in connivance with his family members. Anita Rani was recovered from the possession of Chander Pal on 7.7.1995 and he was arrested by the police of police station Jalalabad. The SHO appended a report in this Court on the application of Urmila Rani wife of Chander Pal, praying for the release of gold ornaments allegedly recovered from Chander Pal and a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure P1. The case registered against the petitioner Murlidhar Sharma, Rakesh Kumar son of Harbans Lal, resident of village Kotu Phangian, district Ferozepur and Bhupinder Pal, son of Kishan Chand, resident of village Sarhian, district Ferozepur, is about their involvement in the alleged abduction of Chander Pal aforesaid.

Roshan Lal, father of Chander Pal had filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 862 of 1996, alleging inter alia that negotiations were going on in the year 1994 regarding the marriage of his son Chander Pal with Sunita Rani, daughter of Murlidhar Sharma, through Shanti Devi, sister of Roshan Lal. Sunita Rani was, however, found to be elder in age to Chander Pal and the said marriage proposal did not materialise. Anita Rani, younger sister of Sunita Rani, it was alleged, had developed illicit relations with Chander Pal. Anita Rani eloped with Chander Pal, but returned home after 34 days. Chander Pal was later on married in December, 1994, with one Urmila Rani of Muktsar. It was contended that despite the marriage, Anita Rani along with her mother continued to meet Chander Pal. It was further alleged that Chander Pal went to his shop on 10.6.1995 and thereafter did not return home. He ran away after taking 15 tolas of golden ornaments and a cash amount of Rs. 10,000/. He eloped with Anita Rani. Roshan Lal alleged that as a matter of fact, it was Roshan Lal, who had enticed his son Chander Pal to elope with Anita Rani. In the writ petition, Roshan Lal referred to the FIR lodged by Murlidhar Sharma, father of Anita Rani against himself (Roshan Lal), his wife, Sunita Rani, and Shanti Devi. It was mentioned that the FIR was, however, cancelled after investigation as no substance was found in the case. Anita Rani returned home after some time. Roshan Lal suspected that Murlidhar Sharma and his family members had caused disappearance of his son Chander Pal and filed a criminal complaint under Sections 364, 379, 506, 342, 148, 149 and 120B IPC against Murlidhar Sharma, Anita Rani, Sunita Rani, Mohan Devi and Raj Kumar in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka on 1.7.1995, which was still pending. Roshan Lal had approached the police for registration of the case but no action was taken by the police. In the writ petition, a direction was issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct the enquiry on the following points :

(i) Where is Chander Pal at present ?

(ii) Whether he was abducted ?

(iii) Whether he is absconding or eliminated ?

The Central Bureau of Investigation conducted a preliminary enquiry against the suspected persons, named above. During the course of enquiry, Chander Pal was reported to have been last seen near his village Kotu Phangian on the night intervening 8/9.8.1995 in the company of Rakesh Kumar and Bhupinder Pal, who allegedly took him to Abohar for arranging his meeting with Anita Rani. It has also come into light during the enquiry that they did not visit Abohar. Rakesh Kumar was to visit village Meerpur, Sirsa, on 8.8.1995 but he reached Meerpur, on 10.8.1995 in the morning. The enquiry also brought into light that there was a clear interaction between Rakesh Kumar and Murlidhar Sharma and the latter had sufficient motive to eliminate Chander Pal as he had illicit relations with his daughter Anita Rani. It was also pointed out that the house of Rakesh Kumar was raided and some documents showing his complicity were recovered and as such his custodial interrogation is required.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner Murlidhar Sharma submitted that the petitioner had, in fact, lodged FIR regarding the abduction of Anita Rani by Chander Pal and the case was pending in the Court. He referred to Annexure P1 filed in Crl. Misc. 11032/M of 1998, which is a report submitted in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fazilka in FIR case No. 32 of 1995 (State v. Roshan Lal etc.) by SI Banta Singh, police station city Jalalabad on 8.8.1995, submitting inter alia as under :

"............. It is submitted that Chander Pal son of Roshan Lal, resident of Kotu Phangian along with Anita Rani was arrested on 7.8.1995 from Dabwali Chowk in FIR No. 32 dated 15.6.1995 registered under Sections 363/366/34 IPC at City Jalalabad..............."

Learned counsel for Murlidhar Sharma stated that the petitioner had no oblique motive qua Chander Pal as he had gone to the law court and has filed a criminal case against Chander Pal and his family members besides others.

The case of the Central Bureau of Investigation regarding involvement of Murlidhar Sharma in the elopement of Chander Pal is belied by the report of ASI, copy Annexure P1 aforesaid. Once Chander Pal had been arrested by the police, he could not be said to be in any way under the control of petitioner Murlidhar Sharma.

Learned counsel for the petitioners Rakesh Kumar and Bhupinder Pal Singh submitted that these petitioners had no hand in this incident regarding disappearance of Chander Pal and the only evidence that has been brought out during enquiry is about these two petitioners having been last seen with Chander Pal in the night intervening 8/9.8.1995. It was also urged that these petitioners had joined investigation of the case and they have cooperated with the prosecution.

Shri R.K. Handa, learned counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, referred to the aforesaid material against the petitioners and contended that their custodial interrogation is necessary in the ends of justice and also in the public interest.

After carefully considering the rival contentions raised by both the sides and going through the averments made and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that so far as petitioner Rakesh Kumar is concerned, the enquiry by the CBI has revealed his further involvement in the case and he may be needed for custodial interrogation in order to unearth the facts leading to disappearance of Chander Pal. However, there is no other material placed on record against Bhupinder Pal Singh, excepting Chander Pal being seen in his company, who had accompanied Rakesh Kumar in the night intervening 8/9.8.1995.

So far as Murlidhar Sharma is concerned, he is the father of Anita Rani, who was allegedly abducted by Chander Pal. Murlidhar Sharma has lodged the FIR and the criminal case is pending in the law court. As per averments made in the petition, he had visited the office of the Investigation Officer, but he was not joined in the interrogation of the case on the ground that the Investigation Officer was away. Thereafter he was not served with any notice regarding his joining of the investigation. In the affidavit dated 30.5.1998 filed by Shri Sandeep Khunger, learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been deposed, inter alia, as under :

"It is worthwhile to mention here that according to the information furnished to the deponent by the petitioner, he appeared on 18.5.1998 before CBI, Sector 30A, Chandigarh and the name of the petitioner is entered at serial No. 11 on 18.5.1998 in the register maintained by the CBI Chandigarh and the petitioner was told that Shri N.S. Raju, the Investigating Officer in the present case is on tour on that day and he was told that he will be summoned whenever he is required in the investigation of the said case."

Resultantly, the petition for anticipatory bail moved by Rakesh Kumar has no merit and his prayer for anticipatory bail is declined and the petition qua him is dismissed. The petition qua the petitioners Bhupinder Pal Singh and Murlidhar Sharma is allowed and they are granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions :

(i) In the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer;

(ii) They shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any way;

(iii) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned court of competent jurisdiction without prior permission;

(iv) This order of anticipatory bail shall remain operative till the court of competent jurisdiction takes cognizance of the case and summons the petitioners for trial.