PARSHOTAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EARLIER this application for bail was accepted by this Court on 14.7.2003. Against the aforesaid order, the complainant filed Crl.A.No.975 of 2004. The matter has been remanded back to this Court with the following observations:

(2.) THE counsel for the parties have been heard at length. Mr. Baldev Singh, learned Senior Advocate •vehemently argued that two appellants in two separate appeals have been simply convicted as one happened to be the S.H.O. of the Police Station and the other was posted in the police station as A.S.I. According to the learned counsel, there is no direct evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime. The entire prosecution case hinges on circumstantial evidence. He also argued that none of witnesses have identified either of the two appellants subsequently from some other persons. However, she could not tell the names of the persons, who had disclosed the names of the appellants. Learned counsel further submitted that the investigating agency had earlier cancelled the case against the appellants. Subsequently, the appellants were tried on the basis of the complaint submitted by the wife of the deceased. The trial Court had come to the conclusion that all the injuries found on the deceased were simple in nature. In other words, the deceased was not in danger of losing his life, hence there would have been no reason for the appellants to eliminate the deceased. Learned counsel also emphasized (sic) and anti -national activities. The alleged occurrence took place at the time when militancy was at its peak in the State of Punjab. At that time the very security of the State had been compromised. Even the son of the deceased was involved in cases under N.D.P.S. Act. He emphasized that the appellants have been falsely implicated as the complainant was close to a local Congress leader and a Municipal Councillor. On the other hand, Mr. Arora has argued that direct evidence would never be available in cases where death occurred in the custody Of the police. He also submitted that the complainant had to step into the prosecution as the police had deliberately closed the case against the appellants as the appellants happened to be the police officials. The trial Court has accepted that the injuries, which were found on the deceased even though simple where typical of systematic torture. Had it not been for the persistence of the complainant, the appellants would have gone scot free. Learned counsel also emphasized that the story put forward by the appellants that the deceased had consumed poison when he went to the toilet is wholly unbelievable as the toilet in the police station was only a makeshift toilet, which was not a permanent structure. Therefore, there would have been no occasion for the poison to have been kept in the toilet.

(3.) WE have considered the entire matter to see if the appellants have a good prima facie case. We however, refrain from expressing any opinion on merits of the case at this stage. On careful consideration of the arguments submitted by learned counsel for the parties, we have formed an opinion that the appellants have raised some very arguable points, which will have to be considered at the time of regular hearing. In other words, a good prima facie case has been made out. We are also informed that immediately upon the bail being cancelled by the Supreme Court, both the appellants surrendered on 9.9.2004. The appeal is not likely to be heard for a long time. The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellants occurred in the year 1992. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for the grant of bail.