DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE THROUGH CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three petitioners are present in Court. The petitioners are being prosecuted for having committed offence under Sections 364/302/218/34 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that Baljit Singh and Rajwant Singh (sons of Kashmir Singh) were picked up by Dharam Singh, S.I./S.H.O., P.S. Lopoke and his subordinates on 13.12.1992. On the same day, Kashmir Singh was compelled by Dharam Singh to disclose the whereabouts of his other son Daljeet Singh. Thereafter, Daljeet Singh (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was picked up and taken to Police Station Lopoke. Kashmir Singh, his sons Rajwant Singh and Baljit Singh were released on 15.12.1992. According to the FIR No. 96/92, registered at Police Station, Ajnala, Daljeet Singh was shown to have been killed alongwith one Jagira by Baljit Singh, Dy. SP. (D) together with other police officials on 29.12.1992. As per the police version, the deceased just before his death disclosed his own identity as well as the identity of other deceased person, namely Jagira. According to the post-mortem report, the deceased received eight fire-arm injuries on his body. These injuries were sufficient to cause death immediately. The dead bodies of Daljeet Singh and Jagira were cremated "unclaimed" by the police. According to the prosecution, the police were aware of the identities of the deceased. According to the prosecution, the alleged encounter put forward by the police is sham and bogus. It is in fact a stage-managed encounter.

(2.) IT is not disputed that after thorough investigation, the three petitioners have been charge-sheeted and are facing trial in the Court of Shri J.S. Chawla, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. On 15.11.1995, the Supreme Court in Crl. Writ Petition No. 497/95 (Mrs. Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab) directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry with regard to the large number of dead-bodies cremated by the Punjab Police as unclaimed (Lawaris). In pursuance of the enquiry, the Supreme Court further directed the CBI by its order dated 12.12.1996 to investigate thoroughly the horrendous acts of unceremonious cremation of dead bodies under the label "unidentified". The present case was registered on the statement of Kashmir Singh as noticed earlier. The petitioners had earlier filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. However, when the case was entrusted to the trial Court, they filed an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. After considering the entire matter, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, a fair trial cannot be expected and there is every chance that the petitioners will either threaten or try to win over the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the application for regular bail has been dismissed. However, two weeks time was granted to the petitioners to obtain fresh bail orders from the higher Court. This direction is said to be given on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.L. Verma v. State and another, 1997(1) RCR (Crl.) 493. Hence the present application for bail has been presented to this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Rajan Gupta appearing for the CBI has vehemently argued that the trial Court itself had come to the conclusion that in case the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they would either threaten or try to win over the prosecution witnesses. It was not open to the trial Court to stay its own order. Having once refused to grant bail, the Additional Sessions Judge had become functus officio and further protection could not have been granted to the petitioners. Mr. Gupta has further argued that the trial Court, having considered the matter, rejected the application for bail. This court would not now be justified in granting bail. Mr. Gupta has also submitted that the submission of the petitioners to the effect that the deceased who had been killed, was a terrorist, is wholly irrelevant whilst considering the application for bail. Whether or not the deceased was a terrorist, he was entitled to be treated in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the CBI has also submitted that the charges against the petitioners are of a very serious nature and as a rule, in such cases, bail is not granted.