HARI RAM Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by one Hari Ram, who is a business man owning a rice -mill alongwith his sons and deals in the purchase and sale of paddy and rice. In the application it is alleged that there is a political feud between Shri Bansi Lal Chief Minister, and Shri Bhajan Lal Cabinet Minister, of Haryana State, and that the applicant belongs to the faction of Shri Bahjan Lal. It is then alleged that an attempt was made by the Chief Minister to involve Shri Bhajan Lal in a rape case in order to tarnish the image of the latter and that for this reason, Chief, Minister is also against the applicant and is bent upon ruining his business on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that the business premises of the applicant were raided by the Police and the Food and Civil Supplies Officials of Karnal in June, 1973 and the entire stock of paddy and rice worth lacs of rupees, was illegally seized on flimsy grounds, for which litigation is still going on against the applicants in the criminal courts at Karnal, and that the applicant's licences were cancelled for which he filed two civil writ petitions Nos. 2281 and 2282 of 1975 wherein the operation of the impugned orders cancelling his licences has been stayed by this Court, Earlier to raid of June, 1973, the applicant's licences were also cancelled by the District Food and Civil Supplies Controller and the applicant had to file writ petitions, which were allowed by this Court and orders were quashed. The applicant was also arrested on 20(sic) th March, 1974, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act and he challenged his detention by means of Criminal Writ Petition No. 8O of 1974 but during the pendency of the petition, his detention order was withdrawn by the Government.

(2.) ON 12th May, 1975, the applicant was arrested by the Karnal Police in two cases, FIR. Nos. 537 of 1974 and 187 of 1975, concerning the theft of cooper electric wires. The applicant was remanded by the Judicial Magistrate to police custody till 17th May, 1975, and was released on bail on 17th May 1975. The applicant has thus alleged that during this period of five days he was tortured by the police by third degree methods in order to compel him to give a statement against Shri Bhajan Lal according to their dictates. It is further alleged that on the night between 14th and 15th May, 1975, the applicant was put in a police van, which was full of police officials under the command of Chaudhary Ranjit Singh Inspector C .I.A. Staff, and was taken to a jungle, where one police official put the barrel of a rifle against his chest while a number of other officials held him, and then he was told that he was going to be shot dead if he did not agree to make a statement as desired by the police. Due to torture and fear of death, the applicant broke down and was consequently brought back to the C.I.A. Staff Headquarters where Shri Y Hari Shanker Senior Superintendent of Police Karnal, was also present, and was made to read a statement, which was being rape -recorded, involving Shri Bhajan Lal in a conspiracy to assassinate the Chief Minister of Haryana. He told this woeful story to his son Jai Parkash, when he was allowed to meet him in the morning of 15th May, 1975, and that his son Jai Parkash sent a letter to the Prime Minister and Home Minister of India informing them of all this happening. On 17th May, 1975, as stated earlier, the applicant was released on bail. It is in these circumstances that the applicant has made this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in this Court for issuance of a direction to the Respondent -State that in the event of his arrest ha shall be released on bail.

(3.) MR . Anand Swaroop, Learned Counsel for the applicant, has contended that the applicant has a reasonable belief that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non bailable offence in order to harass him and to extort any other false statement from him; and that, in the circumstances, it is a fit case where direction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be issued by this Court.