HARMINDER SINGH Vs. SARVJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Harminder Singh a cousin of Gurcharan Singh father of Gurjant Singh deceased for cancellation of the bail allowed to Sarvjit Singh and Charanjit Singh respondents, sons of Jagjit Singh. It appears that the shareholders of Gondara Transport Company (Private Limited) which has its head office at Faridkot got divided into two groups and there was going on some sort of struggle for power in order to secure management of the company. A meeting of the shareholders is said to have been held on 16th September, 1969, in which Gurcharan Singh father of Gurjant Singh deceased and some others were elected as Directors. It is a common ground that Jagjit Singh father of the two respondents was earlier the Managing Director of the company.

(2.) ON the fateful day, that is, 16th September, 1969, after the aforesaid meeting of the shareholders which was later declared illegal by this Court on 14th May, 1970, fire -arms were used between the two rival groups resulting in the deaths of Gurjant Singh on one side and Jarnail Singh on the side of the party of Jagjit Singh. A case was registered with the police at the instance of a foot constable who was on traffic duty near the bus stand at Faridkot where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. The two respondents and three others were arrested under Sections 302/ 149/307/148, Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of Gurjant Singh. Harbhagwan Singh and three others were also arrested and remanded to judicial lock -up for similar offences for the alleged murder of Jarnail Singh but later on 3rd January, 1970, the police is reported to have withdrawn the case against them by purporting to act under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure. Bail was granted to three accused persons, Gurdev Singh, Santa Singh and Wasakha Singh by the Additional Sessions Judge on 15th January 1970. It may be mentioned that earlier bail was refused to these persons on 7th November, 1969 and also on 26th November, 1969. Certified copies of the orders have been produced before me today by Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the last order, the only direction given by the Additional Sessions Judge was that the police should present the challan in Court within a fortnight from the passing of the order. The ground on which bail was allowed on 15th January, 1970, was that the challan had not been produced in Court for about four months and no comments were made on the merits of the case by the Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) MR . Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the bail was allowed because the party of the accused is very influential. Without there being any more data, it is difficult to accept this contention at its face value more so when it is contended on behalf of the respondents as well that the police acted in a queer and unusual manner in withdrawing the case under Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the party of Gurcharan Singh when death of Jarnail Singh had been caused by them. The State has not chosen to put in appearance in spite of the fact that notice of this application had been served on it. The District Magistrate strangely enough and for reasons best known to him decided to keep out of these proceedings. As it appears from the report dated 5th August, 1970, he returned the summons issued by this Court with the remarks that State representation was not necessary and that the Advocate -General had been requested not to defend the case on behalf of the state. After this, I issued notice on August 12, 1970, with an observation that it was necessary to have the State impleaded as a party so that true facts could be ascertained but in spite of that too there is no appearance on its behalf. I am, in these circumstances, compelled to say that some influences might have been working. The District Magistrate did not realise that it was his duty to assist this Court by asking the Advocate -General to represent the State and make available all information that was necessary for the disposal of the present application. It is such conduct of the officials which gives cause for apprehension and an argument that some extraneous influences are working. Facts had, therefore, to be found from the contending parties and I did not like to summon the files as it would have delayed proceedings in the Court below unnecessarily.