KARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The police registered FIR No.83 dt. July 13, 1984, at Police Station, Bhogpur under Ss.440/148/149/380, I.P.C. at the instance of Dara Singh son of Mala Singh regarding the occurrence which allegedly took place during the night intervening July 9 and 10, 1984. The petitioners are the accused persons. It came to the notice of the police during investigation that the accused had also used fire arms. The police desired to arrest the petitioners under Ss.440/148/149/380, I.P.C. and S.25/27 of the Indian Arms Act read with S.506, I.P.C. The petitioners and Dr. Sohan Singh applied to the Sessions Judge, Jullundur, for anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dt. July 26, 1984, allowed anticipatory bail to Dr. Sohan Singh but declined the similar relief to the petitioners. The petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail in the present petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged occurrence took place during the night intervening July 9 and 10, 1984. The occurrence was reported to the police on July 10, 1984. The police recorded the daily diary report and did not register a case on that date. The statements of P.W. Dara Singh and others were recorded on July 10 and 11, 1984 and F.I.R. under Ss.440/148/149 and 380, I.P.C. was registered on July 13, 1984. The argument proceeds that if it had come to the notice of the police from the statements of the P.Ws. recorded on July 10 and 11, 1984, that fire arms had been used by the petitioners then the case would also have been registered under the Arms Act. The fact that the police, after recording the statements of the P.Ws. on July 10 and 11, 1984, registered a case against the petitioners under Ss.440/148/149 and 380, I.P.C. is suggestive that it had not come to the notice of the police till July 13, 1984, that fire arms had been used by the petitioners and the police has thought of arresting the petitioners under S.25/27 of the Arms Act as well and S.506, I.P.C. because S.438, Cr.P.C. has been made inapplicable in relation to these offences under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the petitioners cannot be arrested under S.25/27 of the Arms Act unless a separate case is registered against them for this offence and the police has not registered such a case against the petitioners.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Brar, A.A.G. Punjab has contended that it is incorrect that the police has made any fabrication after July 13, 1984. The police, of course, did not register a case under S.25/27 of the Arms Act against the petitioners on July 13, 1984. The occurrence on the basis of which F.I.R. No.83 dt. July 13, 1984, has been registered, and in which the fire arms were used by the accused party constitute one unit. The police is competent to arrest the petitioners under the Arms Act irrespective of the fact that these sections are not specifically mentioned in FIR No.83. The facts of the case do not warrant allowing of anticipatory bail to the petitioners especially in view of the provisions of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, under which S.438, Cr.P.C. has been made inapplicable in relation to S.25/27 of the Arms Act.