9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present appeal. 3. That one Palwinder Singh Multani, brother of one Balwant Singh Multani (deceased) has lodged an FIR against the appellant at Police Station City Mataur initially for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 201, 344, 219 and 120B of the IPC, and subsequently the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC has been added. 3.1 It is alleged that in the year 1991 one Balwant Singh Multani - brother of the informant was illegally abducted from his residence at Mohali by a team of officials operating under the instructions of the appellant; that he was severely and inhumanly tortured while in custody, by and at the behest of the appellant. It is further alleged that a false and fabricated FIR No. 112 of 1991 might have been registered at the instance of the appellant to suggest that the victim was brought to the police station Qadian from where the victim was alleged to have escaped. 3.2 That apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 06.05.2020, the appellant filed anticipatory bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali. At this stage, it is required to be noted that when the appellant applied for anticipatory ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an application for grant of anticipatory bail being CRMM No. 26304 of 2020. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said anticipatory bail application. Hence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared for the appellant - accused, Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate has appeared for the State of Punjab and Shri K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the original informant. 4.1 Number of submissions have been made by Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - accused in support of his prayer to grant anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that the present FIR is filed with a malafide intention to harass the appellant and at the instance of the present party in power in the State. It is submitted that even otherwise the present FIR is not maintainable as being a second FIR on the same set of facts and has been registered after delay of 29 years of the alleged incident. It is submitted that earlier attempt to falsely implicate the appellant failed and a similar FIR for the very incident in question and wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court in the cases of Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2019 (9) SCALE 120 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1, has not been followed. It is submitted that even the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate, who allowed the prosecution to add the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is unknown to the procedure required to be followed under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. 4.5 It is further submitted by Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, however, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the pending proceedings before this Court for quashing the FIR. It is submitted that the appellant is highly decorated officer with a distinguished service record. Shri Rohatgi has also made submissions on malafide, political vendetta and the harassment by the police. 4.6 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it is prayed to allow the present application and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant. 5. The present application is vehemently opposed by Shri Sidharth Lu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant, the same may not be interfered with by this Court. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantaccused, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original informant. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present appeal the only question which is required to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled to the anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.? 7. Number of submissions have been made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantaccused on political vendetta, malafide, delay in lodging the FIR, even the maintainability of the impugned FIR etc. However, taking into consideration that the quashing petition filed by the appellantaccused is pending before this Court and the issue whether the FIR/criminal proceedings are required to be quashed or not is at large before this Court, we do not propose to elaborately deal with all the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. However, considering the fact that the impugned FIR has been lodged/filed by the brother o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es under Sections 364, 201, 344, 330, 219 and 120B of the IPC, for which there was an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the appellant and subsequently the offence under Section 302 IPC has been added on the basis of the statements of Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh - approvers only, we are of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. 10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, as well as, the learned Additional Sessions Court dismissing the anticipatory bail applications of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 6.5.2020, registered at P.S. City Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali are hereby quashed and set aside. It is ordered that in case of arrest of the appellant - Sumedh Singh Saini in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 6.5.2020, registered at P.S. City Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, he shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees one lakh only) and two sureties of the like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
