STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PIARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The causes in Criminal Revision No. 1292 of 1984 and Criminal Misc. No.5033-M of 1984 being conglomerated would require a common judgment. Accordingly they shall be disposed of together.

(2.) In the wake of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 (for short, the Ordinance) which now stands replaced by an Act of the same name (having received the assent of the President of India on 31st Aug. 1984), Shri J.S. Sekhon, Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, was required to deal with a number of bail applications. The question being of jurisdiction, affecting the power of the Court of Sessions Under Sections 438, 439 and 439-A (as applicable to the State of Punjab and extended to the Union Territory, Chandigarh) of the Criminal P.C., he dealt with it in the application Piara Singh v, The State, holding that the Court of Session had the jurisdiction to entertain application for anticipatory bail Under Section 438 of Criminal P.C., and bail Under Section 439 of the said Code, of those persons whose description does not fall within the ambit of the word 'terrorist' though charged of the offences specified in the Schedule of Ordinance committed during the relevant period. That order is the subject-matter of Criminal Revision' No. 1292 of 1984 preferred by the State of Punjab, though accused Piara Singh by a sequential order was hot granted bail Since the order aforesaid had the effect of interpreting the law and was the governing factor in bail applications pending before him and to be instituted thereafter, the aggrieved State of Punjab prayed for revision of that order. And in Criminal Misc. No. 5033-M of 1984, the complainant has prayed for cancellation of bail of the accused-respondents in F.I.R. No. 100 dt. 15th July, 1984, Police Station Division No. 2, Jalandhar, which is sequentially based on the aforesaid order of the Sessions Judge. So facts only of the latter need to be noticed.

(3.) The prosecution alleges that on 15th July, 1984 at about 12-30 p.m. four accused-ersons, namely, Toti alias Jaspal Singh, Harjit Singh, Bhajan Singh and Harbans Singh quarrelled with Harvinder Pal Singh (since deceased) over the distribution of Langer at the Gurdwara 01 Ramgarhias. Jalandhar. Thereafter when Harvinder Pal Singh (since deceased) and Randhir Singh P.W. reached near their house while returning from the Gurdwara at about 2-30 p.m. all the four accused waylaid them. Harbans Singh accused was armed with a spade and rest of them with sticks (dangs). The attack was opened by Harbans Singh accused who gave a spade blow on the head of Harvinder Pal Singh which by itself proved fatal as the victim died on 18th July, 1984, while admitted in a hospital. Harjit Singh accused gave a stick blow on his left leg. Bhajan Singh and Toti accused gave two injuries each on the person of Randhir Singh when the latter tried to rescue his companion. Toti and Harbans Singh accused had also received some minor injuries due to the altercation in the Gurdwara. The accused, other than Harbans Singh, filed an application for bail before the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The learned Judge declined bail to Harjit Singh accused on the ground that it could well be inferred that he shared the common intention with his co-accused Harbans Singh for killing Harvinder Pal Singh deceased and having waylaid him for the purpose. However, he observed that the case of Bhajan Singh and Toti accused stood on a different footing as they had given simple injuries to Randhir Singh injured. No comment was passed by the learned Sessions Judge with regard to their pervading common intention vis-a-vis the deceased or the injured P.W. Straightway, it was observed that the act of Bhajan Singh and Toti accused did not fall within (he definition of 'terrorist' as defined in Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Ordinance and accordingly they were ordered to be released on bail. Thus the conglomerated view of the learned Sessions Judge in both cases is that the Special Courts created under the Ordinance in the Judicial zones which cover up the entire State of Punjab, have jurisdiction only over those accused which would be tried before them for scheduled offences, if they were terrorists and not otherwise. According to him, scheduled offences committed by persons other than terrorists are triable by the ordinary Courts and thus the Court of Session of a Division had the jurisdiction to grant bail or anticipatory bail to an accused other than a terrorist.