Rajinder Singh vs State of Haryana

S.C. Malte, J.

Petitioner Rajinder Singh was the victim of the offence. In an assault by the accused he sustained as many as 9 injuries indicated in the medical certificate produced in Court. The Xray report further indicates that he has sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of the leg on left fistula, fracture of the left wrist and radius, fracture of two ribs right side and fracture of 4th and 5th matacarpals. He is still under observation since 4.5.1998, the date of incident.

The grievance now raised by the petitionervictim is that the accused respondents in this case secured bail from the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 1.6.1998 on false representation that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, though, in fact, on that date he was not discharged but came to be discharged from the hospital on 11.6.1998. It is further submitted that again he was taken to the hospital for further operations twice to set right the fractured bones mentioned above. He is still undergoing extensive medical treatment of the various injuries and the fractured bones as referred above. It is, therefore, submitted that bail order which has been obtained by false statement to the Judge should not be allowed to sustain.

Learned counsel for the accused has submitted that there is no allegation against the accused that they misrepresented or made a false statement that the injured was discharged from the hospital. The alleged false statement seems to have been made by the Investigating Officer under mistake of facts. It was submitted that for some mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer, the accused should not suffer by cancellation of their bail. It was further submitted that there is no allegation of abuse of liberty during bail. My attention was also invited to a ruling of Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961. The learned A.A.G. Haryana has placed before me the factual aspect and left the matter to the decision of the Court.

The primary question would be whether the bail obtained on either wrong or false statement should be allowed to sustain or nor ? In my opinion, if such orders are allowed to continue that would be nothing but continuance of an order which was obtained by exercise of fraud on Court. In my opinion, in such cases, the question is not whether the liberty under bail is abused or not. The question is whether order was obtained on proper representation of facts or by quoting false facts. The matter is to considered from the angle of propriety of order which was then based on either mistaken or false data before the Court. In the case of Delhi Administration (supra) cited before me Their Lordships were considering the question of cancellation of bail because the allegation was that witnesses have turned hostile; and that was put forth as ground to indicate that evidence was tampered. Their Lordship, for reasons given in paragraph 13 of the report declined to act upon such submissions. On facts that case is not at all applicable to the present case. In the instant case the very inception of the order is based on false statement made by the Investigating Officer.

In this case subsequent order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 13.6.1998 clearly indicates that the Investigating Officer claims to be under wrong impression while stating on earlier occasion that injured in this case was discharged from the hospital. It clearly appears that the Investigating Officer has, without properly verifying the facts, ventured to make statement before the Court that would prompt the said Court to grant bail to the accused. This aspect seems to be a matter for further enquiry or investigation by the higher officers to find out under what circumstances the said Investigating Officer in this case has made such a statement that formed the basis for the grant of bail to the accused. There is material to indicate that accused in this case have also manipulated the evidence to involve the present victim in a false case. The report Annexure P1 filed ASI Balwant Singh indicates like that. It indicates that one complaint in the name of Subhash was filed against the present petitioner. On investigation it transpired that the said Subhash had obtained a false medical certificate and had got a false case registered against the present petitioner. Said Subhash is a child, stated to be related to the accused side.

Besides that, I find that major offence which the accused are facing is under section 308 read with section 34 I.P.C. Considered the nature of injuries and the circumstances in which bail was obtained by the accused. In the set of circumstances, bail granted to the accusedrespondents vide order dated 1.6.1998 stands hereby cancelled, and it is directed that these accused should surender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Sonepat on 8.10.98 who shall remand them to proper custody. Further it is directed that Senior Superintendent of Police, Sonepat shall undertake an enquiry as to under what circumstances and for what reasons the Investigating Officer in this case seems to have made a wrong or false statement to the effect that petitioner injured was discharged from the hospital prior to 1.6. 1998 when order for bail was passed. The S.S.P. Sonepat, shall consider what departmental action shall be taken against the concerned officer, if found so necessary.