SAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. C. and subsequently under section 302 l.P.C. in connection with the murder of Smt. Darshana, deceased. Inter alia, it is contended by the petitioner that he was arrested on 5th August 19&0and is now in judicial custody. No recovery or interrogation is to be made from him. It is also contended that he is the only male member in the family and has no other male member to look after his six children at home. According to the petitioner, his parents are dead and has no brother or uncle to look alter his business and that his wife is also ailing since a very long time. As such, it is submitted by the petitioner that in case he is kept under detention, he can neither look after his family nor, under the circumstances, make a proper arrangement for his defence in the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the car and a pistol alleged to be connected with the commission of the offence have been recovered. The learned counsel has further vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case whereas he is in no way connected with the commission of the alleged offence. He has further contended that the law regarding the grant of bail has been liberalised by the Supreme Court. He has drawn my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan, Jaipur v. Bal Chand [AIR 1977 SC 2447]. 1 shall discuss the impact of this judgment at a later stage, so far as the facts of this case are concerned.

(2.) It may be pointed out that the petitioner had also filed an application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Solan and the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 73.8.1980 rejected the application of the petitioner. It was observed by the learned Sessions Judge that the police has collected sufficient evidence linking the accused with the offence of his female companion being brought from Panipat to Simla. It is further observed that on 11 -7 -1980 the accused brought the deceased towards Kalka and further upto a place near Delhi while himself driving the car without any other person with them, The accused pretended that something had gone wrong with the car and asked the deceased lady to come out. The petitioner came out of the car and is stated to have pushed the lady into the had and fired revolver shots whereby injuries were caused in the abdomen and some other parts of the body. The petitioner is stated to have run away with the car. The injured lady is stated to have come upto the road side from where she was brought by the police to the District Hospital at Solan on 11 -7 -1980 where she was operated upon for the injuries. The lady is stated to have made a. dying declaration which was recorded in the presence of Dr. R. P. Sharma, who signed the same. In her dying declaration, the deceased lady named the petitioner as the person who fired shots at her. It is further observed that the petitioner was keeping the deceased as a keep or his second wife. The police has recovered the car which bears the registration number as given in the dying declaration. As observed earlier above, the petitioner is presently lodged in judicial lock up.

(3.) In the aforesaid case of Bal Chand, while dealing with the question of grant of bail, the Supreme Court observed as under : - "The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weight with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. Even so, the record of the petitioner in this case is that, while he has been on bail throughout in the trial court and he was released after the judgment of the High Court, there is nothing to suggest that he has abused the trust placed in him by the court, his social circumstances also are not so unfavourable in the sense of his being a desperate character or unsocial element who is likely to betray the confidence that the court may place in him to turn up to take justice at the hands of the court. He is stated to be a young man of 27 years with a family to maintain The circumstances and the social milieu do not militate against the petitioner being granted bail at this stage. At the same time any possibility of the absconsion or evasion or other abuse can be taken care of by a direction that the petitioner will report himself before the police station at Baran once every fortnight." It is contended by Shri Panta, the learned Deputy Advocate General, that the petitioner is involved in a most heinous and cold blooded murder case. At the same time, it is contended that the petitioner had gone under -ground and could be arrested after a long time. Moreover, it is contended that the petitioner is an affluent person and is likely to win over the prosecution witnesses. It is also stated that the possibility of the petitioner absconding and even going outside the country cannot be ruled out. According to the learned counsel, there is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the petitioner is liable for the murder of the deceased lady and that in such like heinous crimes, the bail should not ordinarily be granted. He has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Somnath v. State of Haryana, [1980 Cr. L. J. 925]. The essence of this judgment is that a dying declaration under the circumstances of the present case has a convincing value and there is no escape from the conclusion that the offence has been committed by the petitioner alone, beyond any reasonable doubt.