Rajinder Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

The learned counsel for the State has produced translated copy of Rapat Roznamcha No. 16 of Police Station, Lohgarh dated 15.8.1996. The same is he taken on record.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.A.G. for the State.

The case against the petitioner arises because of the FIR given by Nisha Sharma w/o Bippan Kumar Sharma on 28.7.1996 and the petitioner apprehends that he is likely to be punished because of the said FIR for offence under Sections 366, 354, 506/34 IPC. According to the FIR the complainant had gone to see Varsha w/o Kamal Chand near Punjab Civil Secretariat. Varsha''s house was locked. She waited there till 8.00 p.m. Thereafter, she went to a Beauty Parlour in Sector 17 and then started for Zirakpur in threewheeler for getting a bus for Ambala from there. The driver of the threewheeler left her on the crossing near Zirakpur seeing that beyond that there was Punjab and he could not ply his vehicle beyond that point. Therefore, she started on foot to reach the bus stand for Ambala. There was no electricity there. One Maruti Car No. PB10B7639 came from Chandigarh side and stopped near her and asked her as to where she had to go, but she remained silent. That man caught her by her arm and pushed her in the car and he told the driver of the car to take the car towards Patiala side and she was threatened that in case she made may noise she would be killed. She has further alleged in the complaint that at that time one Sikh young man was sitting by the side of the driver on the front seat and all of them appeared heavily drunk. When they started the car towards Patiala, she raised alarm. It was about 10.00 p.m. At the time two police officials were standing on the crossing of Zirakpur on the motorcycle and hearing her alarm, the police officials followed the car on the motorcycle. She has further alleged that time Ashok, the person who was driving the car, was calling his companions as Rajwant Singh and Rajinder Singh and was saying that the police was following them on a motorcycle. On this all of them perplexed and then they slowed down the car and left the petitioner on the road and fled away in the car. The car was followed by the police officials. She went on foot towards the crossing when the police officials met her to whom she narrated the incident and made a complaint.

This is the case put forth by the complainant in her complaint and the petitioner apprehended that they are likely to be arrested for the above offence.

The learned advocate for the petitioner has argued that the complaint itself shows that it cannot be genuine and that no incident could have taken place in the way it has been alleged.

However, the petitioner has, at Annexure P1, produced a copy of the affidavit of petitioner dated 6.8.1996 in which she has stated that when she was waiting for a bus to got to Ambala at Zirakpur bus stand, two police officials came there, enquired about her and took her to Police Station, Zirakpur and got signed blank papers from her and now she has come to know that those signed papers have been used to plant a case against Ashok Kumar, Rajinder Singh and one Rajwant Singh. She has stated in the affidavit that the case is a concocted story and the false one.

The Police Rapat Roznamcha No. 16 produced today, shows that the complainant has stated that one relative of Rajwant, Ashok Kumar and Rajinder Singh got her signatures on some white blank papers and they were saying that she should go to the court and give her statement in their favour otherwise she will not be spared and she has also stated that the above accused want to get the matter compromised by putting pressure on the complainant.

The fact that the affidavit, Annexure P1, has been produced goes to support the version in the Rapat Roznamcha that there was pressure on the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the said affidavit may be ignored. However, it is not possible for the court to ignore such an affidavit which has been used for getting anticipatory bail for the petitioner. One of the main conditions while granting bail or anticipatory bail is that the accused if so released on bail, would not pressurize the witnesses or threaten them in any way. On the contrary, the present case shows that petitioner is threatening the complainant even before he obtained the order of anticipatory bail. The position alone is sufficient for rejecting the application for anticipatory bail. However, looking to the complaint and nature of allegations made therein, coupled with this situation, which shows that the petitioner has pressurised the complainant, the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. The application for anticipatory bail is, therefore, dismissed.