BRIJ MOHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) SINGCE all the writ petitions are arising out of the same matter and the petitioners have claimed almost same relief, they are being disposed of by this common order. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2884/94: Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that during the search of premises of one Poonam Chand Vishnoi, Mr.Chain Singh Rajpurohit, Station House Officer Police Station Bajju District Bikaner recovered some arms from his possession. It is alleged that the accused Poonam Chand Vishnoi during the course of interrogation admitted that he was involved in the smuggling of arms and ammunitions from Pakistan and he had sold some arms and ammunition from Pakistan and he had sold some arms and ammunitions to the persons. In pursuance of the information given by Poonam Chand Vishnoi,x an F.I.R. (Annex.1) dt. 28.9.93 was chalked out and a case under Sections 3 & 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') read with Sections 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered against Poonam Chand Vishnoi, Gulam Nabi, Hanuman Poonia, Mohan Ram, Ramjan and Sri Chand. It is also alleged that during the course of investigation, one Shiv Narain was also arrested and he gave information to the police that the petitioner purchased one Pistol, one Magazine and 28 Cartridges from one Hari Singh. The petitioner was arrested on 2.1.1994 on the basis of said information. It is further alleged that the petitioner was made to admit that one Pistol, one Magazine and 28 Cartridges were sold to him by Hari Singh and on the basis of this information given by the petitioner, the recovery was made by the Police from an open field one Pistol, 22 cartridges alongwith six empty 'Khokhas' were recovered. Thereafter, a case under Section 3 and 5 of the TADA and section 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act was registered against the petitioner on the basis of the information given by Shiv Narayan and on the basis of the information given by the petitioner u/s.27 of the Indian Evidence Act and recoveries made from him. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been submitted before the Designated Court for Rajasthan, Ajmer. Being aggrieved with the proceedings initiated by the respondents no.l & 2 before the Judge, Designated Court for Rajasthan at Ajmer, the petitioner has approached this court by means of this writ petition under - Article 226 to quash the F.I.R. No. 81/93 lodged at P.S.Bajju District Bikaner. It has been prayed that charge-sheet and proceedings pending in pursuance of the said F.I.R. in the Designated Court for Rajasthan, Ajmer under Sections 3 & 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 read with Sec. 3/25 of the Indian Arms Act may also be quashed. This writ petition has been filed on 29.6.1994. On 1.7.1994, the petitioner moved an application stating that vide order dt.20.6.1994, he has been released on interim bail by the Designated Court, Ajmer for 11 days and he is required to surrender before the closing hours of 5.7.1994. The petitioner- applicant prayed that the application may be allowed and additional fact may be taken on record. On 11.7.1994, counsel for the petitioner submitted that a number of writ petition resulting of the same F.I.R. i.e.81/93 Police Station Bajju are pending in this S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No.861/94, 3014/94 and other writ petitions,details of which have been given by the petitioner in para 2 of this writ petition. It was prayed that order in same terms as passed on 27.5.1994 in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.861/94 be passed in this case also. This Court passed order accordingly. On 5.9.1994,. counsel appearing for the State submitted that he does not want to file any separate reply in this petition and shall adopt the same reply as filed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.861/94 and this Court permitted to do so.

(3.) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.861/94 Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he had a motor parts shop and the accused Poonam. Chand Vishnoi owes Rs.3000/- to the petitioner. It is alleged that one month ago from the date of arrest of Poonam Chand, he had come to the petitioner and offered him a pistol with a blank magazine for the amount he owned to the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that he accepted the offer and the accused Poonam Chand Vishnoi when gave the statement in the F.I.R.No.81/93 during the course of investigation disclosed the name of the petitioner stating that a pistol was sold to him with magazine and some cartridges. It is alleged that he was arrested under Section 3 & 5 of the TADA Act and on this information one pistol with an empty magazine was recovered from a pond in village, Bap, Tehsil Phalodi. The petitioner also made a confessional statement before the S.P. He moved a bail application before the Judge, Designated. Court on the ground that Section 5 of the TADA Act is not attracted in his case but the same was rejected vide order dt. 23.12.1993 observing that confessional statements of the petitioner and like others have been recorded and investigation is going on, and the learned Judge of the Designated Court rejected the bail application. Thereafter, the petitioner moved another bail application before the Designated Court but that too was rejected observing that it is a very serious case. It has been observed that according to the prosecution it is a case of conspiracy to smuggle arms and ammunitions from Pakistan to India for terriorist activities, and rejected the bail application on 3.2.1994. Dis-satisfied' with the rejection of bail application, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 15.2.1994, seeking the relief to quash proceedings under TADA Act. This court issued notice to show cause on 18.2.1994. On 233.1994, this Court ordered that the petitioner Manoharlal Paliwal shall not be arrested in F.I.R.No.81/93 P.S. Bajju District Bikaner till next date. An application was moved by the petitioner seeking modification of the said interim order stating that he was on parole at the time, when the order was made and the learned Designated Court may cancel his parole bonds unless, the parole is extended. On 27.5.1994, this court ordered that the petitioner shall not be arrested or his parole be not cancelled till further orders.