PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , Pal Singh and Jai Pal seek bail in case bearing FIR No. 134 dated 18.6.1996 registered under Sections 307, 216-A, 412, 414 of Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act, with Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

(2.) THE present case was registered on the written report made by Inspector Surinder Singh of Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. On 18.6.1996, he along with Sub Inspector Niranjan Singh and other police officials was holding a Nakabandi at Gumthala Garh Chowk. ASI Mam Chand along with members of his staff was already present there. In the meantime, a secret information was received that accused Pal Singh resident of Tuglapur, District Haridwar and Jai Pal resident of Nasarpur, District Meerut, who were wanted by the police of Uttar Pradesh in various dacoities, robberies and murders, had gone to the house of Jasbir Singh alias Jassa in a Maruti car bearing registration No. DL-3C/B-0751 and were sleeping there. The secret information also conveyed to the Inspector that those persons have also been staying earlier in the house of Jasbir Singh, Gurlal Singh and Hardial Singh and have been keeping their arms and ammunitions in concealment with them. Finding this information reliable, Inspector Surinder Singh sent a V.T. message to S.H.O. of Police Station Pehowa as well as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pehowa. Thereafter, DSP Hazari Lal, Sub Inspector Mam Chand and Sub Inspector Sher Singh arrived there. Under the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, different raiding parties were constituted for conducting raid at the house of Jasbir Singh, located in the area of village Dhulgarh. SI Sher Singh along with his staff proceeded towards South of the village, ASI Ishwar Singh along with his party members went to the western side of the village, HC Didar Masih along with his party members took position towards North side of the village while the party headed by ASI Mewa Ram was directed to hold Nakabandi near the School. Thereafter, the police party raided the house of Jasbir Singh. They surrounded his house from all directions. A Maruti car bearing registration No. DL-3C/B-0751 was found parked in the court-yard of the house and three persons were sleeping on cots near the said car. Out of that three persons, one was Pal Singh while the other two were Jai Pal and Jasbir Singh. On hearing the noise, they woke up. Pal Singh after getting up from the cot held his AK-47 rifle while Jai Pal took out his ALR kept underneath the Durrie lying there and both of them tried to fire upon at the police but were over- powered by the police along with their respective weapons. 40 live cartridges of AK-47 rifle wrapped in a piece of cloth were recovered. After removing the magazine of AK-47 rifle, 14 cartridges were also recovered and unloaded from the chamber of the rifle. One live cartridge was taken out. From the possession of Jai Pal, one ALR, one Thaila containing 138 live cartridges of ALR, and one empty magazine containing one live cartridge were recovered. After the AK-47 rifle and ALR were unloaded, recovery proceedings were recorded. On completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. Since both the accused have been facing trial in the cases registered against them in the State of Uttar Pradesh, their presence could not be procured so as to proceed with the trial of the case.

(3.) OPPOSING the submissions made, it has been submitted by the State counsel that the petitioners-accused are involved in heinous crimes and that no fault can be laid with the prosecution for the delay which was resulted in trial of the case because despite efforts made by the Haryana Police to secure the presence of petitioners-accused from the authorities of Uttar Pradesh, they have been unsuccessful to do so, thereby resulting in holding up of the trial of the case. In State, C.B.I./S.P.E., New Delhi v. Pal SIngh and another, JT 2000 (Suppl.3) SC 254, Pal Singh and others were granted bail by the High Court of the Allahabad in relation to an incident which had taken place on 13.9.1992 when Mahendra Singh Bhatti, a sitting MLA of the U.P. Vidhan Sabha, and another person namely Uday Prakash Arya were gunned down by armed assailants within the sight of the on-lookers at a busy locality. In the same shoot-out, certain other persons were injured, some very badly, but the local police could not achieve any tangible progress in investigation and hence, C.B.I. was entrusted with the task of conducting the investigation. On 18.6.1996, the C.B.I. had arrested two accused who were respondents in the bail application and recovered from their possession one AK-47 rifle and one SLR. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 7.10.1996 alleging that seven persons, including two respondents besides other whose identity could not be established, had hatched a conspiracy to murder Mahender Singh Bhatti on account of political rivalry with one D.P. Yadav (another MLA of U.P.). Pursuant to the said conspiracy the murders were committed by the respondents. On 1.2.1999, a Hon'ble Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court had granted bail to the respondents solely on the ground that recovery of fire-arms was made 4 years after the murders. Initially, the Apex Court had suspended the operation of the said order primarily on the ground that bail in murder cases should not be granted merely on the ground of delay in recovery of weapons. However, when it was brought to the notice of the Apex Court that the proceedings in the case were held up because of the stay order granted by the High Court in the petition filed by D.P. Yadav and Karan Yadav, the bail application was disposed of by the Apex Court. In the present case, the State counsel could not lay any blame on the part of petitioners-accused which had resulted in delay in the trial of their case. Understandably, it is due to the fact that the State has not been able to procure the presence of these accused so as to enable the trial Court to proceed with the case. The fact remains that the period for which the accused have been in custody cannot be ignored. It is not disputed by the State that the petitioners-accused have been in custody for the last more than 5-1/2 years.