Sat Narayan vs State of Haryana

K.S. Kumaran, J.

F.I.R. No. 233 dated 16.5.1998 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Ballabgarh under Sections 148, 149, 307, 332, 353 and 304/34 I.P.C. and Section 25 of the Arms Act on the statement of petitioner Sat Narayan, SI/SHO Police Station Sadar, Ballabgarh and reads as follows :

On 16.5.1998 at about 3.15 a.m., SI/SHO Sat Narain (petitionerherein) along with the police party was present for investigation in a case under Section 395 I.P.C. at Carona Chowk. At that time, a truck followed by a Maruti Car (whose number later on came to be known as 6838), came from Ballabgarhside at a high speed and PCR No. 4 was chasing them. They tried to stop, but the truck turned towards Fatehpur Tagga. Two gun shots were fired at the police party from the Maruti Car. Constable Sohan Lal suffered one pellet injury on his right check. The gun shot hit the official jeep on the front side. Police party fired two shots in private defence. The car fled towards Kabulpur. PCR No. 4 was chasing the car. SISat Narayan along with his officials followed the truck in his official jeep along with PCR No. 7. The truck took a round of the village, came on the Bus Stand and entered inside the village. In the meantime 15/20 persons of Village Dhauj including Sadiq, Asrani, Sadhu, Mehtab, Sahjaad and Hanif parked a fourwheeler across the official vehicle, started pelting stones and thereby managed the truck''s escape. The number of the truck was HR383486. In the brickthrowing the jeep and its wind screen were damaged and Constable Rajinmder and Dev Kumar suffered injuries. They encircled the police party. To save himself and the life of the officials gun shots were fired in the air and the officials were rescued.

On the basis of these allegations, the F.I.R. came to be registered.

But Ramzan, a resident of village Dhauj, had sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad and had alleged as follows :

Complainant Ramzan, Usaf and Kallu of village Dhauj were coming back to their village after meeting their relations in village Uttawar at about 3 a.m., and Ramzan was driving his car No. HR 51C6838 belonging to Usaf. Usaf was sitting on the front seat and Kallu was sitting on rear seat. When they were on the road from Dekri to Sikrona at the Sikrona turning, they saw one police jeep standing and some stones had also been placed on the side of the road. They stopped the car and found the petitioner and his police party present there. The police personal enquired and searched the car. The petitioner and A.S.I. Randhir Singh who were carrying revolvers in their hands, asked Ramzan and others to drop Usaf there to which Ramzan and others objected. The police party said that the car and Usaf should be left there. A.S.I. Randhir Singh said that either they do (sic) will suffer. Ramzan and others were adamant and were sitting in the car. All the police personnel stated that they should give money or that they will be killed by showing an encounter in some dacoity case. They demanded Rs. 5,000/, but Ramzan and others offered Rs. 400/ or Rs. 500/ and requested them to allow them to go. All this took about 10 minutes and Ramzan finding that the police personnel were harassing them unnecessarily, made an attempt to start the car, so that the police may not harm them. The S.H.O. in loud voice stated that Ramzan and others be killed by firing gun shots. One of the two constables fired one rifle shot on the car driven by Ramzan which hit the car on the left side above the petrol tank. After penetrating, the shot hit Usaf on his back and also hit on the left ear of Ramzan which started bleeding. Usaf also started bleeding from his back after being hit by the bullet. On this, Ramzan immediately sped away the car to his village. On reaching the village, they disclosed the occurrence to their family members and went to Escorts Medical Centre for treatment, and Usaf was admitted there. Ramzan was also medically examined. At about 6 a.m. the doctor informed that Usaf had died because of the gun shot injury.

In the meantime, a number of persons from the village reached hospital and disclosed that the petitioner and his police party came to the village after Ramzan and others had left and fired gun shots in the air and terrorized the village, but since a number of persons had collected there, they went away. Usaf has been murdered by the above police personnel intentionally.

It is on the basis of this crossversion that Constable Randhir Singh was arrested. Petitioner Sat Narain moved an application for bail in anticipation of arrest under Section 438 Cr.P.C., while Constable Randhir Sigh applied for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, Faridabad. But the learned Sessions Judge dismissed both the applications. That is why the petitioner has approached this Court for being released on bail in anticipation of arrest.

I have heard counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a truck followed by a Maruti car came from the Ballabgarh side at a high speed which were being chased by PCR No. 4 and that when they tried to stop them, the truck turned towards Fatehpur Tagga. According to the petitioner, two gun shots were fired at the police party from the Maruti car in which Constable Sohan Lal suffered a pellet injury on his right cheek. According to the petitioner, they also fired two shots in private defence. The petitioner also claims that while the car ran towards Kabulpur chased by PCR No. 4, the petitioner in his official jeep, along with PCR No. 7, followed the truck which went into village Dhauj, where 15/20 persons of village Dhauj parked a fourwheeler across, pelted stones and saw to it that the truck escaped. According to the petitioner, in the brickthrowing the jeep and its wind screen were damaged and Constables Rajinder and Dev Kumar suffered injuries and these persons also encircled the police party. Therefore, according to the petitioner, to save himself and the life of other officials, gunshots were fired, in which Usaf was injured on his back by one gunshot, who ultimately died. The petitioner denies the crossversion that a demand for Rs. 5,000/ was made from Ramzan, Usaf and Kallu, or that when they refused to pay the same and sped away, police party fired at them on his (petitioner''s) orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the entire village of Dhauj is full of criminals who indulge in various illegal activities including the offences under the Cow Slaughter Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that as may as 39 cases have been registered under the Cow Slaughter Act, and Animal Cruelty Act against the villagers of Dhauj, as is listed in annexure P7, and there have been a number of encounters between the police and the villagers of the said village. The petitioner has also mentioned about FIR No. 8 dated 23.1.1983 in which case the police party was attacked by the villagers of Dhauj and FIR No. 605 of 1998 wherein also, the police party was attacked by the villagers. According to the petitioner, village Dhauj is inhabited by criminals and most of them are involved in cow slaughter, which is their main business earning their livelihood. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this case, Usaf received the gun shot injury accidentally and Ramzan and others are trying to implicate the petitioner by concocting a false story. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that after the incident, the D.D.P.O. was appointed to enquire into the incident who has submitted his report. Copy of the report by the D.D.P.O. has been produced as annexure P2 from which it is seen that the D.D.P.O. had examined many witnesses. The D.D.P.O. has reported that when the police tried to stop the car following the truck, gun shots, (sic) from the car and the car did not stop. He has also reported that the S.H.O., A.S.I. and Constable Randhir Singh fired two shots each on the speeding car, that the gun shot hit Usaf, and that the police had fired only in reply to the gun shot fired from the car and to stop the car which had resulted in the death of Usaf. Ultimately, he found that this occurrence could have been avoided and the accused could have been apprehended had the police been a bit careful. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon this and also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (copy annexure P 3), which shows that the police jeep had sustained several gun shot dents and hit marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that it is not as if the petitioner had fired the fatal injury also, and, therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the relief of bail.

But without meaning of express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner herein is entitled to be released on bail. I find that there are two versions as pointed out earlier. The version of Ramzan is that himself, Usaf and another person were coming in the car which was stopped by the petitioner and others and that the police party consisting of the petitioner and others, demanded Rs. 5,000/ from them. it is also alleged that when they refused to pay and attempted to start the vehicle, the police party fired at them in which Usaf was injured. If that be so, there was no need for the petitioner and the police party to go to village Dhauj at all. Even according to the complaint given by Ramzan to the Superintendent of Police, Faridabad, police had come to the village and had fired shots in the air and terrorised the village. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a pointer to show that the counterversion set forth by Ramzan is not true. The report of the D.D.P.O. goes to support the case of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner incited the other members of the police party to shot at Ramzan and others, when they refused to pay the money and attempted to speed away. The narrations made above go to show that there are several cases registered against the villagers of Dhauj under the Cow Slaughter Act and Animal Cruelty Act and also that there have been encounters between the police and the villagers. The fact that the police party had gone to village Dhauj, is also evident from the complaint of Ramzan himself. This again is an indication to show that the case set up by the petitioner could be true.

Therefore, in these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in the circumstances where it is not shown that he fired the fatal shot against Usaf.

In the result, the petition is allowed and in case the petitioner is sought to be arrested on the allegations found in the crossversion i.e. the complaint of Ramzan mentioned in this petition, then the petitioner shall be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, the petitioner shall associate himself with the investigation and abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.