LACHHMAN DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications for the grant of a anticipatory bail have been filed by Lachhman Dass and Mangat Singh Gill petitioners, since they apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No. RC2(S)/96/SIC/IV/CBI/SPE/New Delhi under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since these two applications relate to the same FIR, I dispose them of by this common order.

(2.) TWO persons by names Jatinder Pehal and Randip Singh were killed on 25.10.1994 while they were in the custody of the police. According to the police these two persons, who were accused in case, were taken for effecting certain recoveries, and while returning certain unknown persons attacked the police with fire arms and in this process these two persons sustained fire arm injuries and died. But Ishwarti Devi mother of Jatinder Pehal, feeling that a false case was put forward by the police, filed CWP No. 3921 of 1995 on the file of this Court for a direction that the killing of the said persons may be investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation. The High Court by its order dated 27.11.1995 directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct the enquiry. A case has been registered under the above-said FIR against Nar Singh Dass-Inspector, Puran Singh-Upper Grade Constable, Hoshiar Singh, Sube Singh, Ramesh Chander and Hari Pal, all constables, attached to the CIA Jind. The petitioners contend the they are innocent, that there is no incriminating evidence against them, that they are not even named in the FIR and that in view of the enmity against them they are likely to be implicated in this case and, therefore, seek anticipatory bail. Petitioner Lachhman Dass had moved the Sessions Court, Ambala, for anticipatory bail but, the learned Sessions Judge, declined his request. By these two separate petitions they moved this Court for anticipatory bail and this Court while ordering notice, stayed the arrest of these two petitioners. The petitioners were directed to join investigation. The CBI has filed replies opposing these two petitions.

(3.) SO far as the contention that the names of the petitioners herein are no found in the FIR is concerned, learned counsel for the CBI contends that the investigation in this case shows the involvement of the petitioners herein.