'Apprehension Of Justice Being Thwarted Because Of Unholy Political Nexus': P&H High Court Denies Bail To Accused In 2014 Murder Case
Observing that there is a likelihood of them threatening witnesses and apprehension of justice being thwarted because of an "unholy political nexus", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied bail to four accused in a 2014 case of murder of a youth from Tarn Taran."Merely because the petitioners are behind the bars for more than three years and trial is not likely to conclude in near...
Observing that there is a likelihood of them threatening witnesses and apprehension of justice being thwarted because of an "unholy political nexus", the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied bail to four accused in a 2014 case of murder of a youth from Tarn Taran.
"Merely because the petitioners are behind the bars for more than three years and trial is not likely to conclude in near future, are no ground for grant of regular bail to the petitioners," Justice Ashok Kumar Verma said in the order.
Justice Verma said the Supreme Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P has observed that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purposes but for the "bifocal interests" of justice. "It has further been observed that it is rational to enquire into the antecedents of the man who is applying for bail to find out whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail," the court said.
In October 2014, Gurjant Singh was attacked and killed by a group of people as they were allegedly "nursing a grudge" against him due to an earlier quarrel with them. Accused Balbir Singh, Sukhraj Singh, Chamkaur Singh and Uday Singh had approached the high court in 2019 for bail.
After hearing the counsel representing the accused, Justice Verma in the order dated January 10 said the court does not find merit in the submissions made by them.
"The petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR. There are specific allegations and roles attributed to the petitioners. Petitioner-Balbir Singh armed with rifle whereas other petitioners armed with Datar/Kirpan are alleged to have attacked and murdered the son of the complainant. In the post mortem report of the deceased, the cause of death is 'due to multiple fractures becasue of injries leading to excessive hamochage blood loose and shock which is sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature', said the court.
The court further noted that under political patronage enjoyed by the accused persons, the police earlier did not conduct a fair investigation and when the complainant approached the high court, I.G. Crime, Punjab was directed to enquire in the matter.
"When even then no investigation took place, the complainant approached this Court; on 31.07.2018 this Court, after considering the status report filed by the State, issued several directions to the State to ensure free and fair investigation in the matter with further directions to stay the proceedings before the Trial Court," it added.
Observing that the trial court acquitted the co-accused Stalanjit Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Gurdev Singh in 2018 despite the stay order, the bench said since the same shocked the court's conscience, powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C. were invoked and through order dated 06.12.2019, a re-investigation was ordered in the matter. The directions were issued only after this court had opined that the investigating agency had failed to perform its duties leading to the acquittal of the co-accused, it added.
The court further noted that in compliance with the directions issued, the State re-investigated the matter and filed a supplementary challan under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. as per which all the co-accused, who had got acquittal, and the petitioners were allegedly found guilty. The counsel representing the complainant told the court that In spite of supplementary challan, acquitted persons were not summoned to face trial; the matter is currently pending before the high court and the trial court proceedings have been stayed.
Taking note of the fact that the petitioners were earlier declared proclaimed offenders, the court also noted that "on 10.7.2016, complainant and eye-witness Satnam Singh turned hostile due to pressure created by the accused which resulted into acquittal of the aforesaid co-accused- Stalanjit Singh, Gurdev Singh and Gurcharan Singh, despite stay order granted by this Court."
"Apart from that, antecedents of the petitioners are also not good. The accused persons had already won over the witnesses which resulted into acquittal of aforesaid co-accused. However, on interference by this Court, re-investigation has been done. Charges have already been framed against them. The accused persons were alleged to have attacked the family members of eye-witness Satnam Singh and in this regard FIR No.57 dated 21.5.2018 under Sections 452, 336, 427, 506, 148, 149 of the IPC had been registered at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran. Offence under Section 201 of the IPC i.e. for causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen the real offenders has also been added," said the court.
The bench further noted that one more FIR has been registered against petitioners Uday Singh and Chamkaur Singh. All these materials are sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of regular bail, said the court.
Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court on bail, the court said:
"... the material on record, gravity of the offence, prima facie involvement and complicity of the petitioners in brutal murder of the son of the complainant, their criminal antecedents, likelihood of again threatening, winning over the witnesses, tampering again with the evidence, apprehension of justice being thwarted by grant of bail to the petitioners because of unholy political nexus having the highest echelons of power and keeping in view the all-out out efforts made by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court from time to time resulting into passing a detailed order dated 6.12.2019 ... showing a ray of light even in a dark tunnel, I am of the considered view that I do not find any trigger point warranting interference by this Court to grant concession of regular bail to the petitioners."
Advocate H. S. Randhawa, representing the complainant, earlier argued that the son of the complainant was brutally murdered at the hands of the petitioners alongwith other co-accused, "one of whom, happens to be police officer and posted as Station House Officer in the same area, while others are the henchmen of a local MLA of the then Ruling party".
The accused are very influential persons and if they are granted bail, the life and liberty of the complainant and his family members alongwith the witnesses would be at stake as earlier the witnesses were made to turn hostile due to threat and pressure and the co-accused persons, the court was told.
Title: Balbir Singh Versus State of Punjab
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH) 11