Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 April, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049997
CRM-M No. 15974 of 2024
2024:PHHC:049997
219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 15974 of 2024
Date of Decision: 15.04.2024
Tarsem Singh ...Pe!!oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Japjit Singh Johal, Advocate
for the pe!!oner.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta!on Sec!ons
20 21.08.2023 Vigilance Bureau 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468,
Range Jalandhar, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(1) (A)
District Jalandhar r/w 13(2) of PC (Amendment)
Act, 2018
1. The pe!!oner, an octogenarian, aged 88 years apprehending arrest in
the FIR cap!oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec!on 438 CrPC.
2. Vide order dated 03.04.2024, this Court had granted interim an!cipatory
bail to the pe!!oner.
3. Facts of the case are being taken from status report dated 15.04.2024
filed by concerned DySP which reads as follows:-
"2. That it is submi ed that Kulwinder Singh son of Bakhshish
Singh R/o Village Dhuga Kalan, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur
submi ed an applica%on bearing complaint No.19/2018 against
pe%%oner, Naranjan Singh and Secretary Ajaib Singh to SSP
Vigilance Bureau, Range Jalandhar. The complainant Kulwinder
Singh alleged in his complaint that Gulzar Singh s/o Partap Singh
was having account in Central Coopera%ve Bank, Rupowal and said
Gulzar Singh died on 4.6.2014. A5er his death on 17.6.2015 Ajaib
Singh, Secretary of the bank obtained loan of Rs. 1,90,000/- in the
name of Gulzar Singh.However Gulzar Singh had already made the
loan account nil by making payment of Rs. 8700/- to Ajaib Singh,
Secretary in 2010. Ajaib Singh entered the name of Gulzar Singh in
the limit loan register of May 2015 and got report from the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049997
2024:PHHC:049997
commi ee members namely Niranjan Singh and Tarsem Singh to
the effect that the names of farmers entered in the limit loan
register are alive. Based on the said report Secretary Ajaib Singh
first approved the loan in the name of deceased Gulzar Singh
during the year 2014-15 and later during the year 2015-16. It has
been further alleged that the commi ee members Niranjan Singh
and Tarsem Singh are residents of village Dhugga Kalan, so they
were knowing Gulzar Singh personally and they were having
knowledge regarding the death MISSof said Gulzar Singh. As such
accused Ajaib Singh in connivance with co-accused Niranjan Singh
and Tarsem Singh first obtained loan in the name of deceased
Gulzar Singh and later on in order to save himself from criminal
liability, Ajaib Singh deposited the en%re loan amount alongwith
interest in the account of deceased Gulzar Singh.
3. That it is submi ed that the aforesaid applica%on was
marked for inquiry to the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance Bureau, Unit Hoshiarpur. On this, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police Vigilance Bureau Unit, Hoshairpur further
marked the inquiry of the ma er to the Inspector of Police,
Vigilance Bureau, Unit Hoshiarpur and he conducted inquiry into
the ma er and he found that Secretary Ajaib Singh in connivance
with members of commi ee Naranjan Singh and pe%%oner Tarsem
Singh obtained limit loan amoun%ng to Rs 1,92,000 on 30.12.2014
in the name of deceased Gulzar Singh and deposited the loan with
interest on 17.06.2015. Therea5er again on 17.06.2015, Secretary
Ajaib Singh in connivance with members of commi ee Naranjan
Singh and pe%%oner Tarsem Singh obtained limit loan amoun%ng
to Rs.1,90,000/- in the name of deceased Gulzar Singh. The
accused Naranjan Singh and pe%%oner members of Co-opera%ve
Society Dhugga Kalan made report with regard to Gulzar Singh
being alive at that %me whereas said Gulzar Singh died on
04.06.2014. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance Bureau Unit
Hoshiarpur also found that the accused Ajaib Singh in order to save
himself from legal ac%on, deposited Rs. 2,26,315/- Limit loan
along-with interest on 06.11.2017 in the account of deceased
Gulzar Singh and the bank did not suffer any financial loss. The
Inspector of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Unit Hoshiarpur further
found that the direct role of Inspector Yudhvir Singh did not surface
in inquiry but the officers/official of Coopera%ve Bank Branch,
Rupowal are found to assist the Secretary Ajaib Singh in the act
with malafide inten%on. Therefore, Inspector of Police, Vigilance
Bureau, Unit Hoshiarpur recommended to obtain legal opinion
from Legal Branch in view of the above said findings to take legal
ac%on against Secretary Ajaib Singh, Member of Society Naranjan
Singh and pe%%oner and sent the inquiry report to his Senior
officers. On this, legal opinion was obtained from Deputy District
A orney (Legal), Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar and he gave opinion
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049997
2024:PHHC:049997
that offence U/s 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and
U/s 13(1) (A) R/w Sec%on 13 (2) of PC Act 1988 as amended vide PC
(Amendment Act 2018) are made out against the pe%%oner, Ajaib
Singh secretary Coopera%ve Society Dhugga Kalan, R/o Village
Dhugga Kalan, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and Naranjan
Singh son of Jagat Singh Member Administra%ve Commi ee,
Coopera%ve Society, Dhugga Kalan, District Hoshiarpur.
Accordingly, FIR No.20 dated 21.08.2023 U/s 409, 420, 465, 466,
467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and U/s 13 (1) (A) R/w Sec%on 13 (2) of PC
Act 1988 against the pe%%oner, Ajaib Singh secretary Coopera%ve
Society Dhugga Kalan, R/o Village Dhugga Kalan, Tehsil Dasuya,
District Hoshiarpur and Naranjan Singh son of Jagat Singh Member
Administra%ve Commi ee, Coopera%ve Society Dhugga Kalan at
P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Range Jalandhar, Jalandhar."
4. I have heard counsel for the par!es and have gone through the record.
5. It remain undisputed that pe!!oner is aged 88 years. This Court does not
find any jus!fica!on to send a person of this age for custodial interroga!on or pre-trial
incarcera!on. Reference is being made to a case !tled Habib vs State of Haryana,
CRM-M No.26522 of 2022 decided on 19.07.2022 in which case this Court had
considered age as a factor while deciding the bail. For ready reference, the observa!ons
as made in case (supra) are extracted hereinaEer:-
"9. As per the latest World Development Indicators, the life
expectancy at birth for an Indian resident averages 69.887 years.
Prison Sta%s%cs India 2020, compiled by the Na%onal Crime
Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India,
reveals that very few States provide special treatment or facili%es
for old age prisoners. The purpose of sentencing is two-fold:
deterrence and retribu%on; and is intended to send a strong
message to the people not to violate the law enacted by the State,
simultaneously consoling and assuring the vic%ms of the jus%ce
system put in place by the State and preven%ng the takeover of
law into their own hands. However, this en%re exercise loses its
purpose when such an older person is involved. Reforma%on to re-
enter the society as an objec%ve of prisons becomes fu%le as the
person is on the last leg of the life. Further, an old person cannot
be meted out harsh treatments to give an example to the society
as it would tantamount to cruelty. Mere existence in confinement
seems more challenging than living without special arrangements
and psychological support of family members for such persons.
Thus, would it be jus%fiable to deny bail to a centenarian,
nonagenariancentenarian, or octogenarian? It can have just one
answer: a thunderous NO anywhere in the globe. The only
excep%ons are extreme perversity, extremely heinous crime, mass
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049997
2024:PHHC:049997
slaughters, or recidivists who refuse to mend their ways to blend
with the community without disrup%ng the social order. Thus, it is
hazardous to deny bail to people over a par%cular age, and there
is a need to be sensi%zed about the sufferings associated with old
age, realizing that sending these older people to jails or prisons
serves no purpose whatsoever, for whom so ever, wheresoever. In
the background of these peculiar facts, coupled with the pe%%oner
being 81 years, date of birth as per AADHAR Card 12-5-1941, the
Court is inclined to grant bail to the pe%%oner."
6. State counsel submits that the ra!o decidendi, as laid down in case
(supra) is not applicable to the present case because in para no.9 of the said judgment,
this Court has also observed Habib's role which is en!rely different.
7. An analysis of the arguments would lead to the outcome that it remains
undisputed that the pe!!oner is aged 88 years and the incident pertains to a decade
ago. There is nothing on record to establish that how custodial interroga!on is jus!fied
against the pe!!oner or what circumstances warrant him being subjected to custodial
interroga!on at such a belated stage.
8. Given above, the pe!!on is allowed. Interim order dated 03.04.2024 is
made absolute. All pending applica!ons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
15.04.2024
Jyo! Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
4 of 4
