Nirmal Singh vs State (Central Bureau of Investigation)

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

This is a petition for bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on behalf of Nirmal Singh, who is an accused in offences under Sections 302/34, 212, 449 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 30 of the Arms Act.

The case pertains to the murder of one Satinder Singh Sekhon on 16th July, 1994 at about 11.10 a.m. at the Dhillon petrol pump, just outside Ambala Cantt. The First Information Report was lodged by Harinder Singh brother of the deceased at 2.00 p.m., an eyewitness to the incident. In this report, the informant gave full details with regard to the manner in which the incident had taken place and also the description of the culprits. On investigation, the local police recorded the statements of various witnesses including Rajnish Dutta, another eyewitness who identified the four assassins by name as Gurdev Singh alias Gaby, Sohan Singh, Naib Singh and Vakil Singh. As per the statements of this witness, Naib Singh caught hold of Satinder Singh Sekhon, while he was sitting on a chair at the petrol pump and his coaccused Sohan Singh had given knife blows which led to his death and when a raula was raised by the witnesses, Gurdev Singh armed with a gun and Vakil Singh accused armed with a danda came out of the car, intimidated the witnesses and forced them to keep quiet. As there appeared to be some dissatisfaction with the investigation by the local police, the matter was referred to the C.B.I. on the request of the Haryana Government and on the completion of the investigation, the C.B.I. has submitted a challan against fourteen persons who are shown as accused in this case. Some of the accused moved six bail applications before the Sessions Judge, Ambala, but the same were rejected on 10th of November, 1994. It is against this order that the present petitioner Nirmal Singh who was also one of the applicants before the Sessions Judge, has come to this Court seeking bail.

The primary argument of Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that the allegations against the petitioner were with regard to the conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased Satinder Singh Sekhon and viewed in this background, the motive that impelled the crime, would assume importance and as the petitioner had no motive to commit the offence, his involvement in the murder was not at all proved. In support of his case, Mr. Cheema, has drawn my attention to a number of documents on record as also the statements of various witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to indicate that the hostility if at all that existed between some of the accused and the deceased did not involve the petitioner even remotely and the motive if any lay with Balkar Singh accused. He has pointedly referred to the statement of PW 49/1 a police statement of Daljit Singh, which indicates that some agreement was arrived at between Balkar Singh and the deceased on 3rd of April, 1989, with regard to the dispute pertaining to the land of the Thakur Dwara. He has also referred to the statements of PW26 and PW44 which are to the effect that the dispute between Balkar Singh and the deceased had been exercising the minds of the concerned persons and some efforts had been made to arrive at a settlement.

As against this, Mr. S.K. Saxena, Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the C.B.I. has also drawn my attention to the evidence collected by the investigating agency. Primary reliance has been placed on documents D45, D 57 and D60 which indicate that there was a relationship inter se between the petitioner and the deceased and that the parties had agreed at one stage that they would run the petrol pump together and share the profits as also the expenses. Mr. Saxena has further drawn my attention to the statement of Ravinder Singh Dhillon PW 4/3 to the effect that the deceased being an unemployed graduate Engineer had been given a dealership for a petrol pump and that the petitioner had undertaken to get a ''No Objection Certificate'' for Sekhon from the concerned authorities and in consideration thereof, he (the petitioner Nirmal Singh) was to be given a share in the petrol pump. This statement further records that as the petitioner was unable to get the ''NOC'' the deceased too had backed out of the deal and consequent thereto, the relations between the two, had got strained and Balkar Singh and his companions started to harass the deceased at the instance, of the petitioner. From a reading of the documents and the statement referred to above, it is apparent that there were business dealings between the deceased and the petitioner on account of their partnership in the petrol pump and as the deceased had allegedly backed out of his commitments, there was cause for strain in their relations and that the deceased had also expressed his apprehensions with regard to this relationship. Mr. Cheema''s argument that it was Balkar Singh alone, who was the injured party will regard to the partnership, is, therefore, without merit. It is also significant that the dispute between the petitioner and the deceased which was recorded in the various documents that have been referred to above continued to simmer in the years 198990 but matters seem to have come to a head after March 8, 1992 when the petrol pump was actually commissioned.

Mr. Cheema has also challenged the story of the prosecution with regard to the allegation of conspiracy against the petitioner and has assailed the evidence of Jagmohan Bhalla PW28 on this aspect. He has contended that as Jagmohan Bhalla was privy to the conspiracy, he should have been arraigned as an accused and as such, his statement could not be admissible in evidence by virtue of the bar created by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. This argument of Mr. Cheema is controverted by Mr. Saxena by arguing that there were two stages in the socalled conspiracy hatched with regard to the incident and whereas Jagmohan Bhalla was involved in the first part, the same did not result in the murder of Sekhon but as he was not a privy to the second conspiracy which led to the murder, his statement was admissible. The statement of Jagmohan Bhalla would have to be examined in the light of this argument. This statement indicates that the petitioner was extremely annoyed with the deceased on account of his business dealings and he had decided to use Jagmohan Bhalla, a close associate of Darshan Singh accused for the purpose of luring the deceased to KalaAmb to settle scores with him. Jagmohan Bhalla met the petitioner on a number of occasions and was advised to receive and to carry out the instructions received from Balkar Singh accused. It appears that these instructions were received and pursuant thereto, Jagmohan Bhalla posing himself as one Rajesh Lamba, an agent for Manjit Singh Toor who was known to the petitioner and to the deceased and was residing in the U.S.A. asked the deceased to come to KalaAmb on 29th of May, 1994 so that some business dealings could be finalised and the meeting was fixed for 29th of May, 1994. It appears that though Balkar Singh, Darshan Singh and some other accused along with Jagmohan Bhalla were present on the date and time, the deceased did not turn up. Though the first effort was unsuccessful yet another one was made by Jagmohan Bhalla to secure the presence of the deceased onyet anotherdate on the same pretext and at the behest of the petitioner but that too did not succeed. It will be clear therefore from the sequence of events reproduced above that as far as Jagmohan Bhalla was concerned, his involvement ended when he failed to secure the presence of the deceased despite two attempts. Admittedly, Jagmohan Bhalla had no role to play in the second part of the socalled conspiracy which led to the actual crime. It is, therefore, apparent to my way of thinking that Jagmohan Bhalla could not be said to be an accused whose statement would be inadmissible in evidence on account of the embargo placed by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. There are certain other facets of this matter which deserve to be highlighted at this stage. It will be recalled that Jagmohan Bhalla had posed to be one Rajesh Lamba, an agent for Manjit Singh Toor and had tried to entice the deceased to KalaAmb at the instance of the petitioner. It has come in the statement of Manjit Singh Toor (recorded on the basis of a questionnaire and faxed by him to the CBI) that he knew the petitioner as also the deceased through a common friend, one Paramjit Singh Chahal. He has further stated that he had come to India in the beginning of 1994 and on enquiry from the deceased had told him that he had some friends who were in the metal scrap business and that the deceased had asked him to send some samples of the scrap available and that some samples were, in fact, sent. In response to question No. 9, Manjit Singh Toor also stated that the petitioner used to call him from India on and off as a friendly gesture and would often ask him about his business affairs and it was in the course of one such conversation, that he probably told the petitioner that he was trying to procure some metal scrap orders from the deceased. It is noteworthy that the Fax was received from Manjit Singh Toor on 14th of October, 1994 by the CBI in Delhi and the statement of Jagmohan Bhalla giving full details about the metal scrap business was recorded on 15th of August, 1994 that is long before the aforesaid message was received. It is also apparent from a reading of the Fax as also the statement of Jagmohan Bhalla that the only persons who knew about these personal dealings were Manjit Singh Toor, the petitioner and the deceased and it was this prospect of a business deal that was sought to be used by the petitioner as a means of luring the deceased to KalaAmb and that the only person who could have conveyed this information to Balkar Singh to be further conveyed to Jagmohan Bhalla was Nirmal Singh petitioner himself. It is also significant that when Jagmohan Bhalla was not successful in getting the deceased to KalaAmb on 29th May, 1994, the matter was reported to the petitioner and to Balkar Singh at the residence of the petitioner at Mohar village and the petitioner advised Bhalla to make yet another attempt and this too was made, though without success. From the evidence thus collected, it is also apparent that Balkar Singh and Darshan Singh had very close relations with each other and with the petitioner and Darshan Singh was, in fact, related to him. It is also the admitted case that Gurdev Singh alias Gaby was a nephew of Balkar Singh, whereas Naib Singh and Vakil Singh were his covillagers and the petitioner had utilised their services to settle scores with the deceased.

Mr. Cheema has also referred to the fact that there are two statements that have been recorded at the instance of Jagmohan Bhalla, one by the local police and the other by the CBI on 15th of August, 1994 and as the first statement did not contain the particulars of the facts referred to above, the second one being an afterthought could not be believed. As against this, Mr. Saxena has urged that once the matter had been referred to the CBI, it was not only proper but incumbent upon the C.B.I. to record the statements of all the witnesses and that this procedure had the sanction of the Supreme Court in a case reported as Radhey Shyam v. Kunj Behari and others, AIR 1990 SC 121. Reference has been made to para 8 in which it has been observed as under :

"The High Court has failed to give due consideration to the fact that the investigation of the case had been handed over to the C.I.D. because of unsatisfactory investigation by the authorities of Todabhim Police Station. As such the C.I.D. was under an obligation to examine once again the witnesses already examined and to examine other persons whom the original investigating agency ought to have examined but had failed to examine. In the very nature of things, a fuller and effective investigation by the C.I.D. is bound to bring out several matters not discovered or recorded by the first investigating agency. As to how much acceptance has to be given to the investigation done by the C.I.D. and the statements of witnesses recorded by its officers is a matter which can be determined only after the trial is held and the witnesses and the investigating officer adduce their evidence on oath."

It is, therefore, apparent that as at present it would not be possible to accede to Mr. Cheema''s arguments and to straightaway reject the statement made to the CBI

There are certain other factors which have a bearing on the outcome of this application. In this connection, reference needs to be made to the statement of PW43 Mohan Lal, who is the owner of a shop in which a telephone has been installed. He has stated that at about 1200 noon, on 16th July, 1994 that is the date of incident, Gurdev Singh alias Gaby came to his shop to make a call to Ambala Cantt to the residence of the petitioner and to Balkar Singh. He, thereafter, made two or three calls but though the witness was unable to hear the conversation that had taken place between the two, yet he did observe that Gurdev Singh was in a nervous state of mind. The statement of Mohan Lal finds corroboration from the statement of PW64 Tejparkash Singh who had gone to meet the petitioner at his house in village Mohra and this statement, in deed, makes interesting reading. He has stated that on 16th of July, 1994 at about 12.30 p.m. when he was present at Mohra at the residence of the petitioner, the petitioner had informed him that Satinder Singh Sekhon had been stabbed and injured and that this information had been conveyed to him (i.e. the petitioner) on telephone and shortly thereafter, it had also been intimated that Satinder Singh Sekhon had been declared dead on arrival at the hospital. What needs to be particularly noted is that the incident took place at 11.10 a.m. on 16.7.1994 and the F.I.R. was recorded at 2 p.m. on that date but the information about the incident appeared to have been conveyed to the petitioner at about 12.00 noon as would be apparent from a reading of the statements of PW43 and PW64. What is equally significant is that one of the primary accused Gurdev Singh alias Gaby sought to convey the information with regard to the incident first and foremost to the petitioner. The matter does not end here. It appears that soon after the murder, the accused went to the petrol pump of Darshan Singh coaccused and the latter advised them that it would be in the interest of all that they should go to the hills and get in touch with Nirmal Singh from there. The four main accused, thereafter, went to Mussoorie and checked into Hotel Vishnu Palace on 16th of July, 1994, but as they appeared somewhat nervous in the aftermath of the murder, they made various telephone calls from the S.T.D. booth located near the Hotel. These facts find corroboration from the statement of PW13 Sohan who was the attendant at that telephone booth and had not only recorded the telephone numbers to which the calls had been made but had also identified the four accused as those had who made them. From his statement, it is clear that on 16th of July, 1994 two calls and on 17th July, 1994 one call was made to Chandigarh on Telephone No. 41686, that is the residence of the petitioner. An inference can safely be drawn, therefore, that the petitioner knew about the whereabouts of these accused as they were apparently trying to seek shelter and guidance from him. It is also noteworthy that the statement of one Arun Kumar Handa PW39 has also been recorded in which he has stated that Balkar Singh coaccused had rung him up in Yamuna Nagar and told him that he was going to Mussoorie and wanted Handa to confirm from the petitioner''s residence as to where Gurdev Singh alias Gaby and others were staying while at Mussoorie. Handa promised to call the petitioner''s residence to get the information and on doing so, was told by Shastri P.A. to the petitioner, that the petitioner had gone to Chandigarh and he did not know the exact place of Gurdev Singh''s stay at Mussoorie. It is also significant that as per the statement of PW26 Swaran Singh owner of the car used at the time of the murder, the petitioner was fully aware of the details with regard to the incident and that he had at a later stage advised the accused to surrender to the authorities. He has also stated that on 22nd of July, 1994, the petitioner had told the witness that as he apprehended a raid by the C.I.D. it was proper that they go away from his residence. The coinjointed reading of the statement of PW26 and PW39 do indicate that after the incident, the four main accused in this case were in frequent touch with the petitioner and were seeking his guidance on the fall out of the murder. In a matter of conspiracy, no direct evidence of the offence would generally be available but the circumstances do prima facie indicate the involvement of the petitioner.

For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss it as such. It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are for the limited purpose of disposing of this bail application and will not prejudice the mind of the Court with regard to the main trial.