Sidhu Moosewala Murder Case | Punjab & Haryana HC Rejects Bail Plea Of Police Officer Who Allegedly Helped Accused Flee From Custody

Observing that he was a "protector of law" who was entrusted with the custody of undertrial gangster, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the bail plea of a police officer who allegedly helped a gangster, an accused in the murder of Shubhdeep Singh, alias Sidhu Moosewala, to abscond from police custody.

Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi said, "the job of the petitioner is to protect the law and order at the hands of the miscreants whereas, despite working in the Police department, the petitioner has worked to the detriment not only of the department but against the interest of the public at large, which was required to be protected by the petitioner. The allegations alleged against the petitioner are very serious."

The Court noted that, it is a conceded fact that is as per the CCTV footage available on record, the petitioner seen is taking the undertrial gangster from the Police Station to his own residential quarter in his private car and that too without any jurisdiction, from where the said undertrial gangster was allowed to flee from the Police custody.

"The job of the petitioner was to interrogate the undertrial at the Police Station so as to extricate the truth behind the allegations being alleged against the said undertrial. The undertrial was allowed to escape from the Police custody and the petitioner in connivance with undertrial gangster facilitated in the said process," added the judge.

Pritpal Singh, who was then posted as a Sub-Inspector is accused under Sections 222 (intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed), 224 (resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension), 225-A (omission to apprehend, or sufferance of escape, on part of a public servant, in cases not otherwise, provided for), 212 (harbouring offender), 216 (harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC and  sections of Arms Act in Punjab's Mansa district.

The senior counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the petitioner is behind bars and has undergone incarceration for a period of one year and one month hence, keeping in view the fact that offence under Section 222 of the IPC, is not made out, the petitioner may kindly be granted concession of regular bail.

Opposing bail, the state counsel argued that the petitioner was a Police Officer, who was entrusted custody of an undertrial gangster for interrogation, but the petitioner facilitated the escape of the said undertrial gangster namely Deepak @ Tinu. 

After hearing the submissions and examining the records, the Court noted, the petitioner being the protector of law at the relevant time was entrusted with the custody of undertrial gangster so as to investigate the crime being alleged so that, the culprits could be tried in the court of law in a manner required.

It further noted that, “the petitioner whose job is to ensure that no one uses unauthorised weapon or keep the same in his/her possession, was keeping illegal weapons in his own quarter which have been recovered at his instance after his arrest."

This fact shows that as to what kind of person the petitioner is and what kind of links he has with the personnel, who disrupted the law and order situation, the judge added.

Justice Sethi observed, had the petitioner being an ordinary under trial accused the consideration for the grant of bail would have been different but, the consideration for the grant of bail to a protector of law, who has flouted the law for his own interest so as to facilitate an undertrial, who is a gangster to escape from police custody, is to be dealt in a manner so as to protect the faith of common people with the Police as an Investigating Agency and to be the protector of innocent people rather than on the side of the gangsters.

The State Police had reposed faith in the petitioner to interrogate the undertrial gangster in the manner required qua the allegations alleged against him by including the petitioner in the special investigation team, which faith has been eroded by the petitioner by way of his conduct as stated hereinbefore, added the Court.

While noting that the only argument raised is that the petitioner has undergone a custody of one year and therefore, he should be enlarged on bail especially when, the petitioner was granted the interim bail by the Co-ordinate Bench, the Court said, "it may be noticed that the delay in the trial is only due to the fact that all the accused are yet to be arrested."

"The conduct of the accused is not to be ignored even if, the accused has undergone one year of incarceration. Whether, a protector of law who has behaved in a manner so as to flout the law, so as to help the anti-social elements, should be brought back to the society by the grant of regular bail especially when the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner, in case granted the benefit of regular bail, will not interfere in the process of law so as to stall the trial," the judge observed.

Rejecting the bail, the Court directed that, "all efforts be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the next date of hearing even if, short adjournments are to be given and the presence of the witnesses is to be secured by passing coercive orders."

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Advocates Mr. Nikhil Ghai,, Ms. Kamaldeep Kaur,

Ms. Malini,, Mr. H.S. Kaura, and Mr. Shubhkarma Kaura, for the petitioner.

Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Addl. A.G. Punjab with Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG Punjab.

Title: PRITPAL SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 260

Click here to read/download the order