STATE THROUGH C.B.I. Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the C.B.I. against the order dated 11th May, 1996-Annexure P-3 to the petition by which the respondent Nirmal Singh had been granted interim bail so as to join in the formation of the New Ministry in Haryana, he being a newly elected M.L.A. from the Nangal constituency.

(2.) THIS case has a chequered history. It relates to the murder of one Satinder Singh Sekhon on 16th July, 1994 at the Dhillon Petrol Station, situated in Ambala Cantonment. On investigation, the C.B.I. found that in addition to the four unnamed persons mentioned in the F.I.R., the respondent too had conspired with the other accused in the commission of the murder. He was, accordingly, arrested on 22nd October, 1994 after he had surrendered in the Court of one of the Judicial Magistrates at Ambala. After his arrest, he applied for the grant of regular bail to the Sessions Judge, Ambala, but the same was rejected vide order dated 10th November, 1994. Against this order, he filed Criminal Misc. No. 18120-M of 1994 in this Court and after a detailed consideration of the matter, this Court vide order dated 2nd December, 1994, upheld the order of the Sessions Judge, and rejected the bail application. The S.L.P. filed in the Supreme Court impugning the order was also dismissed. The respondent, thereafter, applied for interim bail before the Sessions Judge for enabling him to attend the marriage of his sister's son, but this too was rejected on the 20th January, 1995 and Criminal Misc No. 1594-M of 1995 impugning the aforesaid order was also dismissed by this Court on 25th January, 1995. On 16th October, 1995, the respondent applied for interim bail, yet again, this time on medical grounds but this application too was rejected. He again applied for the grant of interim bail for the purpose of contesting the elections to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha and this application was rejected by the Sessions Judge, on 20th March, 1996 and Criminal Misc. No. 5403-M of 1996 impugning the aforesaid order was also dismissed by this Court on 27th March, 1996 by a detailed order and the Special Leave Petition filed in the Supreme Court was also dismissed as withdrawn on or about the 15th April, 1996. In the meantime, it appears that the respondent had successfully contested the elections to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha as an independent candidate from the Nangal constituency, the result of the election being declared on May 9, 1996. He had, however, already moved an application before the Session Judge, Ambala on the same day, seeking his release on regular bail on the ground that as he was likely to be elected an M.L.A., it his right to participate in the formation of the Haryana Ministry. It was also pleaded, in addition that the prosecution evidence had since been recorded and this change of circumstances warranted his release on bail. Notice of this application was ordered to be served on the C.B.I. for 11th May, 1996. On that date, however, neither the District Attorney representing the State of Haryana nor the Public Prosecutor representing the C.B.I. - the prosecuting agency - were present, but the Sessions Judge, nevertheless chose to grant interim bail to the respondent upto 20th May, 1996, but left open for consideration on that date the question as to whether this order was to be made absolute or bail was to be denied. It is under these circumstances that the C.B.I. has moved the present petition impugning the aforesaid order. Notice was issued by me on 14th May, 1996 for 17th May, 1996 and the operation of Annexure P-3 was also stayed. Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Counsel put in appearance on the date and sought time till today to argue the matter.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. R.S. Cheema, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has urged that the impugned order was merely an interim one and the question of the grant of regular bail had been left open by the Sessions Judge in the light of the fact that the change in circumstances warranted a re-examination of this matter. In this connection, he has pointed out that the respondent had undergone almost one and half years of incarceration after his arrest, that the entire prosecution evidence had been recorded, wherein most of the material witnesses implicating the respondent had not supported the prosecution and that one Gulzar Singh a co-accused had been released on bail by this Court, were all relevant circumstances that required a re-examination of the matter. He has further stated that as the respondent had since withdrawn his bail application, any discussion now would be largely academic. Mr. Cheema finally argued that it was evident from the affidavit filed on behalf of the C.B.I. that notice had been served on it on 9th May, 1996 and in fact, Mr. Saxena the learned Public Prosecutor, who was present in Chandigarh on the 10th May, 1996, had also been intimated the date of hearing and as such, the requirement of a notice to be issued to the Public Prosecutor had been complied with.