SIMRANJIT SINGH MANN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging mala-fides against Sardar Beant Singh, Chief Minister, of Punjab, the petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents for releasing him in all cases known or unknown. It is submitted that the petitioner who is an Ex. I.P.S. Officer and a former Member of Parliament has been raising number of social issues in the Court in the public interest which allegedly caused embarrassment to the Government and the head of the Government with the result that he took the matters personally and allegedly put the petitioner behind the bars on flimsy cases. It is contended that the petitioner filed a public interest litigation in this Court praying for an independent probe into the case of alleged molestation of Ms. Katia. It is submitted that in the said case the grand son of the respondent Chief Minister, was involved. It is further claimed that Gurkirat Singh who is the grand-son of the Chief Minister had to remain behind the bars for nearly two month' on account of initiation of the proceedings against him by the petitioner. It is contended that the Chief Minister made a statement to the Press in New Delhi in December, 1994 declaring that the petitioner would be arrested soon. The petitioner was arrested on 5-1-1995 from Bassi Pathana and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib on 6-1-1995. At that time it was disclosed that the petitioner had been arrested in FIR No. 108 dated 26-12-1994 registered at PS Sirhind under Sections 124-A, an 153 A of the Indian Penal Code and FIR No. 70 dated 13-8-1994 registered at P. S. Sirhind under Section 153-A, of I.P.C. He is also shown to have been arrested in another FIR dated 5-1-1995 registered at P. S. Sirhind for an offence under Section 506, I.P.C. and other offences. The petitioner filed a bail application for his release in FIR dated 26-12-1994 and was granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Patiala. He moved another application for bail in FIR registered against him on 5-1-1994 and 13-8-1994 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh - Sahib who also granted him bail in FIR dated 5-1-1995 but no bail could be granted to him in FIR dated 24-8-1994 because the prosecution had allegedly changed the offences to Section 124-A, I.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehagarh Sahib, however, granted him bail in that case also. Despite the fact that the petitioner had been granted bail in all the aforesaid three cases, he could not he released from Jail as another case was registered against him at Police Station Khanna vide FIR No. 89 dated 15-8-1994 under Section 124-A, and 153A, I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the TADA. It is submitted that all the FIRs. registered against the petitioner contains similar allegations and contents of speeches made by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed Criminal Misc. No. 1087-M of 1995 in this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The Police party from Beas is also stated to have come before the judicial Magistrate, Fateh Garh Sahib and sought petitioner's police remand in FIR No. 59 dated 27-8-1994 for offences under Sections 3 and 4, of TADA. The remand was, however, refused by the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner was again produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Talwandi Saboo on 27-1-1995 in FIR No. 32 dated 29-4-1994 for offences under Sections 124-A and 153A, I.P.C. He was again produced at Ludhiana on 30-1-1995 in another FIR allegedly registered way back in the year 1992. It is alleged that the petitioner was produced in the Court in handcuffs allegedly on the ground that the petitioner made statements in the Press declaring his intention to file case against the extension granted to Mr. K. P. S. Gill, Director General of Police. It is contended that new unknown cases are being brought against the petitioner only with the purpose of keeping him behind bars at any cost allegedly due to personal vendatta of the Chief Minister.

(2.) On 2-2-1995 while issuing notice of motion we asked Shri S. S. Shergill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, to accept notice and to file reply disclosing the number of cases registered against the petitioner alongwith the copies of the FIRs for our perusal. In reply, Annexure R has been filed which gives information regarding the cases registered against the petitioner till that date. The particulars of the cases are as follows : S. No. Particulars of the case Present position Date of arrest Custody 1. FIR No. 108 dt. 26-12-94 U/s 124A, IPC, 153A IPC, Sec. 3 Police (incitement to disaffection Act, 1922 P. S. Sirhind (FGS) Under investigation 5-1-95 Judicial custody 2. FIR 2 dt. 4-1-95 U/s 353, 186, 506 IPC PS Sirhind (FGS) --do-- 6-1-95 --do-- 3. FIR 70 dt. 13-8-94 U/s. 153 A, IPC, P. S. Sirhind (FGS) --do-- 6-1-95 --do-- 4. FIR 89 dt. 15-8-94 U/s. 124-A, IPC and Sec. 4 TADA, PS Khanna --do-- 20-1-1995 --do-- 5. FIR 59 dt. 27-8-94 U/s 124-A, IPC, 153-A, IPC and 3/4 of TADA PS Beas (Majitha) --do-- Yet to be arrested --do-- 6. FIR 32 dt. 29-4-94 U/s 124-A, 153-A, IPC P. S. Talwandi Sabho (Bathinda) --do-- 27-1-95 --do-- 7. FIR 71 dt. 11-9-92 U/s 123/124A, IPC, 153A 307, IPC and 3/4 TADA Act PS Dehlon (Jagraon) --do-- 30-1-95 --do-- 8. FIR 75 dt. 18-9-92 U/s 124-A IPC, 153A IPC and U/s 3, 4, 5, 6 of TADA PS Jaito (Faridkot) --do-- Yet to be arrested --do-- 9. FIR 124 dt. 18-12-93 U/s 124-A IPC, 153-A IPC P. S. Sadar, Ropar. Under trial 23-12-93 --do-- 10. FIR 19 dt. 10-2-92 U/s 171 C, 153-A, 124-A,295-A, 506 and 120-B, IPC P.S. Civil Lines,Patiala. Under Investigation Yet to be arrested --do--

(3.) In the detailed reply by way of affidavit of Karnail Chand Banga, Deputy Secretary to Government, Punjab, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, it is submitted that the present petition had been filed in the Court with the oblique motive of discrediting the State administration with mala-fide intention. It is submitted that the public interest litigation in Ms. Katia's case was filed by the petitioner knowing fully well that the Police had already not only identified the accused but had actually arrested them and kept in the jail. The fact that the petitioner had been a Member of Indian Police Service and thereafter a Member of Parliament has not been disputed. It is, however, submitted that despite his election as Member Parliament, the petitioner stood disqualified as he refused to take Oath under the Constitution in the Parliament. The petitioner is alleged to have failed a number of frivolous and vexatious petitions in the public interest. He is stated to have acted as meddlesome interloper and wayfarer. It is submitted that in the garb of public interest he has deprived the general public of their right of being heard. The filing of public interest litigation by the petitioner has been termed to Personal Interest Litigation. The suggestion of the petitioner that on account of his filing a public Interest Litigation in Katia's case, the State Administration was enraged has vehementally been denied. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 5-1-1995 at Bassi Pathanan and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib on 6-1-1995. He was arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIRs registered for the commission of the alleged substantive offences. It is brought to the notice of the Court that despite the grant of the bail, the petitioner has not furnished bail bond in case FIR No. 70 dated 13-8-1994 registered at P. S. Sirhind and case FIR No. 2 dated 4-1-1995 of P. S. Sirhind. It is stated that the petitioner infact does not want to come out of the Jail for reasons best known to him as is evident from the non furnishing of bail bonds despite Court orders. The arrest of the petitioner is allegedly on account of his declared intention to file a case against the extension of Mr. K. P. S. Gill, Director General of Police has vehementally been denied being incorrect. All cases registered against the petitioner are attributed to be in his knowledge. The petitioner is alleged to have addressed a number of meetings wherein he made inflammatory speeches declaring the creation of a separate State of Khalistan out of India. It is submitted that as the petitioner is involved in cases under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short the 'TADA') he is not entitled to the grant of any relief from this Court. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to approach the Designated Court for the grant of appropriate relief in accordance with the provisions of law as contained in TADA and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governing the grant of bail in such cases.