Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 2022
CRM-M-30306 of 2018 and connected petitions 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision:11.3.2022
1. CRM-M-30306 of 2018
Ajit Singh and another vs State of Punjab
2. CRM-M-34091 of 2018
Nirmal Singh and others vs State of Punjab
3. CRM-M-37079 of 2018
Satinder Singh @ Sonu and another vs State of Punjab
4. CRM-M-11430 of 2017
Satinder Singh vs State of Punjab and others
5. CRM-M-12461 of 2018
Satinder Singh vs State of Punjab and others
6. CRM-M-26069 of 2018
Satinder Singh vs State of Punjab and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH.
Present:Mr.Rahul Bhargava, Advocate, for the petitioners
Mr.Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab
Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the complainant
...
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (Oral)
CRM-M nos.30336, 34091 and 37079 of 2018
Vide these petitions, the petitioners therein seek to be admitted
to anticipatory bail, upon FIR no.6, dated 10.2.2017, having been registered
at Police Station City Qadian, District Gurdaspur, alleging therein the
commission of offences punishable under Sections 323/324/326/506/148/
149 of the IPC.
The matters have remained pending for more than 3 years now,
with arguments eventually addressed by all counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in these petitions submits
that though an earlier petition filed by some of the petitioners, i.e. CRM-M
1 of 5
no.11213 of 2017, was dismissed by this court on 3.4.2017, however,
thereafter a Deputy Superintendent of Police had found the petitioners to be
innocent but after which an SIT was constituted in which the petitioners
have again been arraigned as accused; and therefore they have filed these
petitions seeking to be admitted to anticipatory bail.
On 1.8.2018, notice of motion had been issued in CRM-M
no.30306 of 2018 by this court (coordinate bench), with the arrest of the
petitioners therein having been stayed.
Similar orders were passed in the other two petitions also,
which continue to operate till today.
Today, Mr.Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the
complainant in the FIR, submits that these petitions in fact are not
maintainable once this court had already expressed its opinion on merits
that it was not inclined to entertain a petition seeking anticipatory bail, in
view of the fact that the petitioners and their co-accused are alleged to have
attacked the complainant and others with swords etc., as recorded in the
order dated 3.4.2017, passed in CRM-M no.11213 of 2017.
Whereas I would agree with that contention completely,
however upon query to learned State counsel, he points to the affidavit
dated 26.11.2021, filed by the SSP, Police District Batala, in which, after
giving the details of the investigation, eventually it is stated as follows:-
"The case is under investigation with ASI Sarwan Singh,
Investigating Officer, PS Qadian, and the custodial
interrogation of the petitioners of CRM-M no.30306 of 2018,
CRM-M no.34091 of 2018 and CRM-M no.37079 of 2018 is
2 of 5
not required by the investigating officer of the case FIR no. 06
dated 10.02.2017."
At the end of the affidavit, though it is stated that the petitions
may be dismissed, yet, even as per instructions of learned State counsel,
as has also been stated by the SSP, the custodial interrogation of the
petitioners is not required at this stage at least.
That being so, even in terms of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in M.C.Abraham versus State of Maharashtra, (2003) 2 SCC 649, in
fact there would be no cause to further continue with these petitions despite
the opposition of learned counsel for the complainant, and consequently
they are disposed of as are having been rendered infructuous in view of
what is stated in the SSPs' affidavit.
All affidavits filed in these petitions as had not already been
taken on record, are ordered to be taken on record.
CRM-M nos.11430 of 2017 and 12461 of 2018
By these petitions, the petitioner in CRM-M no.11430 of 2017
seeks issuance of necessary directions to respondents no.2 and 3 to protect
his life and liberty at the instance of respondents no.4 to 11.
He further seeks a direction to transfer the investigation in FIR
no.62, dated 24.2.2017, registered at Police Station Division-A, Amritsar
City, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 323/341/506/148/149 of the IPC (with Sections 307/325 of the
IPC having been added later).
He also seeks issuance of appropriate directions that a status
report be submitted with regard to the FIR (Annexure P-1).
3 of 5
In CRM-M no.12461 of 2018, he seeks issuance of necessary
directions to respondent no.2 to issue 'immediate necessary directions' to
respondent no.3 to not conduct an impartial/one sided enquiry at the
instance of accused persons in the aforesaid FIR no.62, dated 24.2.2017.
Learned State counsel points to the affidavit dated 8.2.2022,
filed by the DCP Detective, Amritsar City, in which it is stated in
paragraph 5 that an 'untraced' report has already been submitted as regards
this FIR before the competent court and that proceedings before that court,
including as regards a protect petition, were pending for 8.3.2022 at that
stage.
That being so, obviously the petitioner has his remedies
against any such report filed before the competent court and I would see no
reason to entertain these petitions any further, which are consequently
disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to avail of his remedy before the
competent court.
It is to be noticed however that learned counsel for the
petitioners in these petitions has drawn attention of this court to the order
dated 23.3.2018 passed by this court (coordinate bench), wherein while
issuing notice of motion in CRM-M no.12461 of 2018, the contention of
learned counsel had been noticed as regards the enquiries conducted (with
Mr.Bhargava today submitting that actually no enquiry was conducted and
the AIG concerned had been summoned to court).
Even so, no order observing anything on the merits of the
investigation having been passed thereafter, (other than noticing the
contentions of learned counsel), and with a report having been now filed
4 of 5
before the competent court, I see no reason to entertain these petitions.
Disposed of as already stated above.
CRM-M no.26069 of 2018
This petition has also been filed by the same petitioner who
has filed CRM-M-11430-2017. Vide this petition he seeks that the report
prepared by the SHO, Police Station Kadian, District Batala, be set aside as
it ignores the report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kadian.
He further seeks a direction to the DGP, Punjab, to stay
operation of the enquiry conducted at the instance of those accused in FIR
no.62, dated 24.02.2017, registered at Police Station Division-A, Amritsar
City (as already referred to in the context of CRM-M-11430-2017 and
CRM-M-22461-2018).
A detailed affidavit with the regard to the said FIR no.62,
dated 24.02.2017, (alleging therein the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 323/341/506/148/149 of the IPC, with Sections 307/325 of
the IPC having been added later), having been filed by the DCP Detective,
Amritsar City, stating that an untraced report has been filed, I would see no
reason to continue with this petition either, which is also disposed of in the
same terms as the other two petitions herein above, but with this court not
having made any observation on the actual merits of the case, that being left
to the competent court to decide in terms of the report submitted and any
protest petition filed thereafter.
A photocopy of this order be also placed on the files of the
other connected cases.
11.3.2022 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH )
pk JUDGE
5 of 5
