In This post we discuss about the grounds for refusal of Anticipatory bail to an Ex-DGP who is alleged to have been involved in custodial death of Balwant Singh Multani. This post will enable readers on what premise generally High Courts are inclined to grant concession of anticipatory bail to petitioners.
Judgment Digest: Sumedh Singh Saini v. State of Punjab
This discussion looks into the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the bail application of Sumedh Singh Saini. Sumedh Singh Saini was a decorated police chief of Punjab who is known for his role in reinstating normalcy after the Khalistan militancy. He became the youngest DGP in the country in 2012 and retired in 2018 after 36 years of service. However, his career is also marked with police excesses and human rights violations, this case being a prime example of the same. These incidents occured following a terrorist attack on Saini in 1991. The proceedings have once been concluded in the Apex Court, but revived again in May of this year on a fresh application, with new evidence and witnesses, which will be outlined hereunder.
Judgment accessible at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/119440723/
Facts of the Case
The accused petitioner, Sumedh Singh Saini was an ex-DGP who had demitted his office in 2015 and retired in 2018. The allegations had been made by the complainant Palwinder Singh Multani, son of Darshan Singh Multani and were in respect of the state-managed elimination of his brother, Balwant Singh Multani in December 1991. The deceased, Balwant Singh Multani was employed as a Junior Engineer with Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Development Corporation Limited (CITCO) and resided in Mohali. During the petitioner’s tenure as Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, on the early morning of 11th December 1991, Chandigarh police swooped upon the residence of the deceased and took him away forcibly and illegally without assigning any reason. It was alleged that DSP Baldev Singh Saini on the petitioner’s instructions also abducted Jaspreet Inderjit Singh and his father Manjit Singh. The whole game-plan was made to know the whereabouts of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, a relative of the deceased. Chandigarh police thereafter, headed by SI Satbir Singh, picked up Balwant Singh Bhullar and Kultar Singh (father and father-in-law of Davinder Bhullar). All the five people were then taken to CIA Staff, Sector 11, Chandigarh and kept in illegal custody of the SI who was being instructed by the petitioner. During this illegal detention, the deceased was given third degree treatment by the accused due to which he became unwell. On 13th December 1991, an FIR No.440 of 1991 was filed under various Acts in Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh in which the deceased was an accused. He was arrested on false allegations by SI Har Sahai Sharma, the police station incharge. Due to third degree torture by the police, Balwant Singh passed away. As a part of this conspiracy, the accused had falsely depicted that SI Jagir Singh had taken him to Batala, where he was shown to be declared a proclaimed offender. His father had turned to various legal recourses, but without success, due to the great political patronage, power and influence wielded by the petitioner. After his passing in the year 2015, the present complainant being the brother had taken the charge.
In the present appeal, the petitioner who was accused in case bearing FIR no.77 dated 06th May 2020 under various sections of IPC had come up in this first bail application under Section 438 CrPC.
ALSO READ- HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH REGULAR BAIL CASE 307 SECTION IPC
Issues of the case
- Whether the petitioner could be granted anticipatory bail?
Case Laws Cited
State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & others [1]
Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P.[2]
Vinod Kumar vs. The State of Punjab and others[3]
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab[4]
State of A.P. vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu[5]
Union of India vs. PadamNarain Aggarwal[6]
Directorate of Enforcement vs. P.V. Prabhakar Rao[7]
State of Gujarat vs. Narendra K. Amin[8]
Narendra K. Amin vs. State of Gujarat[9]
Maruti Nivrutti Navale vs. State of Maharashtra‘[10]
Pardeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand [11]
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT[13]
Prakash Kadam vs. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta[14]
Panchanan Mishra vs. Digambar Mishra[15]
Lachhman Dass vs. State of Haryana[16]
Inder Singh vs. Shiv Charan[17]
Hazura Singh vs. State of Punjab[18]
Dalbir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[19]
Yashwant vs. State of Maharashtra[20]
Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another[22]
Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty[23]
ALSO READ- GROUNDS OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN INDIA
Findings of the Court
The counsel for the petitioner contended that it was due to political vengeance that the petitioner was being falsely implicated in this case. They cited various incidents to bring out the causes of enmity that the present regime had with him. In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh Bhullar, the Supreme Court had passed orders declaring the proceedings to be a nullity and the FIR registered by the CBI stood quashed. Once the proceedings had been set aside, subsequent FIR on the same very averments does not sustain. They further contended that the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.A.S. Nagar vide orders dated 11th May 2020 had allowed the petitioner anticipatory bail in this case. With the malicious addition of a charge under 302 IPC, he was entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The State had prosecuted after a delay of 29 years. They also argued about the principle set in Lalita Kumari and the principle of constructive res judicata. There had at no occasion been a misuse of anticipatory bail by the petitioner, who as a senior ex-functionary of the police should have been shown compassion.
The prosecutors pointed out that the petitioner had meandered through various encounters and state-managed eliminations during his tenure. A letter of June 2020 issued by the office of the SSP was shown to prove his influence even after retirement. Importantly, evidence uncovered after the bail order of May 2020 submitted that the former officials as approvers had admitted to the torture and elimination of the accused during custody and the plan of impersonation of another accused as the deceased to evade prosecution. They cited all the aforementioned judgments to show that proceedings can be revived as new evidence appears. The petitioner had breached the condition of the previous bail and had managed to vanish from the state despite Z+ security. Their final submission was that all the efforts of the family were nullified due to the power wielded by the petitioner. His custodial interrogation was essential to unearth the truth of the allegations and the evidence.
The court rejected the counsel’s claim that quashing of FIR debarred fresh prosecution by citing the very judgment of the quashing in which the Supreme Court had allowed for fresh proceedings. It was observed that the deceased after being illegally apprehended had never been produced before a Judicial Magistrate but only before an Executive Magistrate in another District from where he was stated to have escaped from huge posse of police and paramilitary forces. This strengthened the allegations of conspiracy. The police had also failed to eliminate suspicion. The accused had been granted anticipatory bail, which was subsequently dismissed due to addition of offences, causing the present appeal.
In Pardeep Ram’s case it was held that the court can order custody where bail had been granted on the addition of offences. In Sushila Aggarwal and in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, the Apex Court had held that an order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit the rights or the duties of the police/investigating agency. “A million dollar question” was that can under the garb of anticipatory bail, the investigating agency be hindered? “If it would have been the intention of the legislature then no crime in this world could have been detected and the culprits would have gone scot- free.”
In Japani Sahoo, it was held that a crime never dies which is reflected in the maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi – lapse of time is no bar to Crown in proceeding against offenders. A delay in proceedings is only a relevant factor and not a ground in itself for dismissal.
The court observed that the family had been making every conceivable effort in initiating the judicial process, which had gained traction when the witnesses had openly come forward. The petitioner was a blue-eyed boy and wielded much influence. He had even gone to the extent of intimidating the judicial process as shown by the observations in Vinod Kumar. He had intimidated an officer of the CBI during the trial in New Delhi. New evidence had come up since the previous bail and it needed to be protected from his prying eyes. It is a well settled proposition of law that provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. Thus, due to the nature of the crime, the possibility of the petitioner stifling fair investigation, and the need for custodial interrogation, the bail application was dismissed.
Conclusion
Thus, the court rejected the bail to the notorious officer in light of all the facts and his past record. It is not uncommon for the police to indulge in such nefarious acts and the history of custodial deaths is marked in black. Just like this case, the family of the victims of false allegations are often left in the want of answers and to the mercy of the system. All the while, the influential go to the extents of overawing the judiciary and the investigating authorities, trying to put them under their thumb. The officers in power often forget that they are but the servants of the public. Although such decisions are welcome considering the course of the events, often one is left to wonder if they were too late in coming. Nevertheless, the infamous accused in the Custodial Death case seems to have been put to a stop for now.
ALSO READ– BAIL PROCEDURE CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI (TRICITY)
References
As given in footnotes.
This post is written by Jigyasa Kharbanda
Rest as per criminal jurisprudence, Bail is rule and Jail is exception. For case specific advice, get in touch with best/top expert Bail criminal lawyer of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali.
For more info, dial 99888-17966.
[1] Criminal Appeals No.753-755 of 2009
[2] (2014) 2 SCC 1
[3] 1996 (1) PLR 325
[4] (1980) 2 SCC 565
[5] (1987) 8 SCC 104
[6] 2008 (13) SCC 305
[7] (1997) 6 SCC 647
[8] (2008) 13 SCC 594
[9] (2008) 13 SCC 584
[10] (2012) 9 SCC 235
[11] (2019) SCC OnLine 825
[12] (1997) 7 SCC 187
[13] (2001) 4 SCC 280
[14] (2011) 6 SCC 189
[15] (2005) 3 SCC 143
[16] (1997) 1 RCR (Cri) 201
[17] (2002) 1 RCR (Cri) 743
[18] 1995 SCC Online P&H 724
[19] 2009 (11) SCC 376
[20] 2018 SCC Online SC 1336
[21] (2011) 6 SCC 216
[22] 2020 (5) SCC 1
[23] (2007) 7 SCC 394
