GURMUKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. 25986 and 31456 of 2010 as both the applications for grant of anticipatory bail have been moved in the same case being FIR No. 61 dated 1.12.2009 under Sections 306, 341, 342, 201, 120B IPC, Police Station, Dhilwan, District Kapurthala, Punjab.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, Roor Singh was illegally kept in police station on 4.9.2009 and was later arrested on 5.9.2009 in FIR No. 43 dated 5.9.2009 under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 420, 120B IPC. He died in police custody on 5.9.2009 at 11 PM. Medical examination was conducted and death was found to be on account of poison. Enquiry was conducted under Section 174(1A) by a Judicial Magistrate who concluded that death was in police custody and was unnatural. Report of the Magistrate is dated 16.11.2009. This led to registration of FIR on 1.12.2009. Thereafter, in view of a newspaper report dated 27.11.2009 to the effect that Administration was trying to shield the guilty policemen, this Court took suo motu cognizance in the matter on 28.11.2009 and a statement was made on behalf of the State that investigation was handed over to the IGP (Crime) who gave his report dated 2.8.2010 which implicated among others the Petitioners Gurmukh Singh and Ajit Singh who were posted at Police Station at the relevant time. According to the said report, the Petitioners were responsible for not taking necessary precaution as per direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal : AIR 1997 SC 610 on account of which the accused possibly committed suicide by consuming poison in the police lock up. In view of the said report, offence earlier registered under Section 304 IPC was converted to Section 306 IPC. The connected matter in which suo motu cognizance was taken by this Court being CWP No. 18326 of 2009 has also been heard alongwith these petitions and is being disposed of by a separate order. Therein, it was held that opinion of the Investigating Officer that it could be a case of suicide cannot be accepted as final and investigation by CBI was necessary in the matter.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that offence against the Petitioners was at best under Section 304A IPC.