BHAGWAN DASS Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the following prayers: -

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the Police Station, CID, Bharari, Shimla, received information that accused Bhagwan Dass, a retired army person used to send secret information regarding defence matters of the country to a foreign agent in lieu of money. The police party headed by SHO, Tenzin Shashni, reached at Kangra on 26.1.2011 and intercepted him at Jawalamukhi and recovered one diary from his house in presence of large number of respectable persons of the village. The diary contained 389 pages in which from page 107 to 209 secret information regarding defence matters of the country are mentioned. The conversation of petitioner No. 1 from his Mobile No. 94187 - 95867 was trapped while talking on Mobile No. 94149 -89321 of a foreign agent. Petitioner No. 2, namely, Ghanshyam Guleria, a retired Subedar Major Honorary Caption claiming to be deployed in Welfare Cell at Army Quarters, New Delhi, after collecting secret defence information of army, was also passing the same to foreign agent in lieu of salary being received through 'Hawala Transaction' and in that respect the accounts/details of receipt of money were also collected by the police officials. Petitioner No. 3/Amrik Singh was also involved in receiving money for sending secret information (pertaining to the Defence of the country) to his co -accused Bhagwan Dass and Ghanshyam Guleria and the money received in lieu thereof was being deposited in his bank account.

(3.) DURING investigation, it was revealed that petitioner No. 1 had received Rs. 14,000/ - in his son's account and petitioner No. 3 had deposited Rs. 8,000/ -+ Rs. 6,000/ - in account of Rajesh, son of petitioner No. 1. It also came into light that petitioner No. 3 had also deposited a sum of Rs. 6,000/ - in account of petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 3/Amrik Singh, moved a bail application No. 52 - D/XXII/2011 on 17.2.2011 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, which was rejected on 25.3.2011. Cr.M.P. (M) No. 414 of 2011 by petitioner No. 3 was also rejected by High Court of Himachal Pradesh vide judgment dated 28.06.2011 with liberty to the petitioner to apply to move again in accordance with law. In the meantime, case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 21.5.2011, which however, was remanded back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kangra (in short called as JMIC) vide its order dated 2.7.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala. These two orders dated 21.5.2011 as well as 2.7.2011 however have not been placed on record. The case was again committed to the Sessions Court vide order dated 26.7.2011 of Ld.JMIC, Kangra -II Kangra, whereas, learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra while setting aside the above order dated 26.7.2011 vide its order dated 25.8.2011 (passed in Sessions Case No. 21 -B/2011), has remanded and relegated back the case to the Court of Ld.JMIC(II) Kangra, again directing him to proceed further with the complaint from the stage of Section 200 Cr.P.C. In reference to the above order dated 25.8.2011, Ld.JMIC vide its order dated 12.10.2011 has again given liberty to the complainant to seek clarification from the State Government or Department concerned regarding special empowerment to deal such case by a particular court, Ld.JMIC further directed the matter to be listed on 22.2.2011.