Himachal Pradesh High Court
Navjot Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 12 October, 2020
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
Cr.M.P(M) Nos.902 & 982 of 2020
.
Reserved on: 05.10.2020
Date of Decision: October 12, 2020
1. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 902 of 2020
Navjot Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ..Respondent.
2. Cr.M.P.(M) No. 982 of 2020
Manjeet Singh ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh ..Respondent.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Raja Paramdeep Saini and Ms.Garima
Kuthiala, Advocates, for the petitioner in
Cr.M.P.(M) No.902 of 2020, through Video
Conferencing.
Mr.Sanjeev K. Suri, Advocate, for the
petitioner in Cr.M.P.(M) No.982 of 2020,
through Video Conferencing.
For the Respondent: Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate
General, through Video Conferencing.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
These petitions, preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.271 of 2017 dated 07.06.2017, registered in Police Station Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur H.P. under Sections 147, 149, 332, 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2020 20:19:32 :::HCHP 2 'IPC' in short) and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Petitioners, after remaining in police custody, are in judicial custody since July 2017. Main challan was presented in the .
trial Court on 30.08.2017, whereas, supplementary challan was presented on 01.12.2017. Now case is fixed for recording of evidence of PWs at Sl.No.13,14 and 16 on 19.11.2020 and PWs at Sl.No.17, 20, 21 and 24 on 20.11.2020. It is also stated in the status report that petitioner Navjot Singh was found involved in three other criminal cases i.e. FIR No.295 of 2005 dated 05.12.2005 registered under Section 307 IPC in Police Station Kharar District Mohali; FIR No.32 of 2011 dated 11.04.2011 registered under Sections 326, 324, 323, 506, 356, 427, 148 and 149 IPC in Police Station Mullapur, Garibdas Mohali; and FIR No.54 dated 25.05.2012 registered under Sections 302, 341, 327, 506, 149 and 120B IPC in Police Station Mator District Mohali and petitioner Manjeet Singh has been found involved in FIR No.79 of 2017 dated 01.06.2017 registered under Sections 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act in Police Station Mauli Jagran Chandigarh.
3. On the basis of material placed before me, in present bail petitions, it is apparent that Navjot Singh (petitioner in Cr.M.P. (M) No.902 of 2020) had also approached High Court by filing Cr.M.P.(M) Nos.267 of 2018 and 985 of 2018, but those petitions were dismissed, by a Coordinate Bench, as withdrawn on 16.04.2018 and 20.08.2018, respectively, with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh. Thereafter, Navjot Singh had again preferred Cr.M.P.(M) No.1017 of 2019, which was also dismissed on 24.06.2019 by the Coordinate Bench as withdrawn at that time, by ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2020 20:19:32 :::HCHP 3 taking note of the fact that bail petitioner was behind the bars for two years and by that time only two prosecution witnesses out of 20 had been examined, the Coordinate Bench had hoped and trusted that the Court below would make all out efforts to conclude the trial .
expeditiously, preferably on or before 31.12.2019. It was also observed that otherwise also, on judicial and administrative sides, this Court has been repeatedly advising the Courts below to take up the cases of under-trials on priority basis, so that their liberty is not curtailed for an indefinite period, if they are ultimately found to be innocent.
4. Co-accused Gurjaipal Singh had also preferred bail application being Cr.M.P.(M) No.1628 of 2018, which was dismissed on 11.01.2019. At that time, his bail application was rejected on the ground that prima facie it had come on record that he was actively participating with the hardcore criminals, who even do not care for the consequences of using of fire arms. Therefore, at that stage, when only one witness had been examined, enlargement of the petitioner on bail was not considered in the interest of justice as plea of the petitioner, at that time, that victim and material witnesses, being officials could not be dissuaded or terrorized, was rejected for the reason that despite knowing that complainant was performing his duty as a police official/officer, the bullets were shot upon him on a highway on the barrier.
5. Thereafter co-accused Gurjaipal Singh was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2019, passed in Cr.M.P.(M) No.1480 of 2019. Learned counsel for petitioner Navjot Singh has referred observation of this Court, which reads as under:- ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2020 20:19:32 :::HCHP 4
"4. In status report dated 28.09.2019, detailed particulars of listing of dates, when trial was listed for examining witnesses, has been given, perusal thereof reveals that at initial stage, examination of the witnesses was postponed on account of applications .
filed by the co-accused. However, after 03.08.2018, case was listed for examination of witnesses w.e.f. 23.10.2018 to 27.10.2018, but on that date, witnesses referred by the accused in their application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., could not be summoned inadvertently. The said dates are not relevant as after that bail application preferred by the petitioner was rejected on 11.01.2019. Thereafter, case was listed for examining prosecution witnesses in April 2019 on 18.04.2019, 19.04.2019 and 20.04.2019, but on 18.04.2019, PW Rajinder Kumar, complainant, was not present and as such, recording of statement of the witnesses was deferred and the said witness, complainant, was examined on 03.05.2019. Thereafter, case was listed for recording of evidence on 17.05.2019, but on that date, accused were not produced on the ground that Police Force was not available for deployment in Lok Sabha Elections and as such, case was adjourned for 06.07.2019 for recording of the evidence, but on that date, no witness was present, which constrained the Court to issue bailable warrants against witnesses No.6, 7, 8 and 10, who are none but the official witnesses as witnesses No.6, 7 and 8 are officials in the Police Department/Home Guard and witness No.10 is Clerk in Transport Department (RTO Office). On the next date, fixed for for examining these witnesses i.e. 21.09.2019, only one witness i.e. Constable Inderjeet was present, but he was given up and bailable warrants were again issued against remaining witnesses.
6. In the facts narrated supra as revealed from the status report filed on behalf of the respondent-State, it is evident that recording of the statements of the witnesses is being delayed for laxity on the part of the prosecution as the witnesses against whom trial Court has been constrained to issue bailable warrants are none but the official witnesses serving in the Police Department/Home ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2020 20:19:32 :::HCHP 5 Guard/Transport Department and further that petitioner is behind the bars since July 2017 and in case prosecution case is taken to be as it, he appears to be the first offender in the case as at the time of commission of alleged offence, he was 23 years of age .
and at that time, unlike other co-accused, he has not been found to be involved in any other case. Therefore, case of the petitioner altogether is different from his co- accused, namely, Navjot Singh, Surmukh Singh and Manjit Singh, and therefore, it can be considered on different footings. It is also the fact that statement of the complainant, who is victim in the present case, has also been recorded as PW.2 on 03.05.2019. Considering entire facts and circumstances as well as status of the petitioner which is different from his co-accused and also considering the fact that petitioner has undertaken to furnish local surety on his behalf, I find that at this stage, r he is entitled for bail as purpose of the bail is to ensure presence."
6. After grant of bail to co-accused Gurjailpal Singh, Manjeet Singh (petitioner in Cr.M.P.(M) No.982 of 2020) had also approached this Court by filing Cr.M.P.(M) No.2031 of 2019 for enlarging him on bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Gurjaipal Singh. This petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2019, on the ground that there may be similarity of certain facts, however, contrary to the circumstances related to Gurjaipal Singh, petitioner-Manjeet Singh was found to be involved in another case and plea of the petitioner that he had been acquitted in the said case was also not considered helpful to him for the reason that he had been acquitted of the charges by giving benefit of doubt, but not on the ground that he was not involved in that case.
::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2020 20:19:32 :::HCHP 6
7. Aforesaid order dated 21.11.2019 was assailed by petitioner Manjeet Singh in the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11794 of 2019. The Supreme Court at the time of disposing of that Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated .
24.01.2020, though, had expressed its disagreement with the view of this Court on both issues, on which bail petition of petitioner Manjeet Singh was rejected, however, after hearing case on merits and after perusing the evidence, including statement of injured Constable recorded in the Court, without expressing view on merits of the case, had refused grant of bail at that stage on the ground that case was at an advance stage of trial. Operative portion of order passed is as under:-
"We, therefore, heard the case on its own merits after perusing the evidence including statement of the injured constable recorded in the Court. Since the case is at an advance stage of trial, we do not express any view on the merits of the case but we feel that bail cannot be granted at this stage."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that after refusal by the Supreme Court to grant bail, matter was listed for recording evidence of prosecution on 29.02.2020 and 07.03.2020 and on 29.02.2020, against five summoned witnesses, only two witnesses were present and they were examined. Whereas, on 07.03.2020 against four summoned witnesses, only two witnesses were present and they were also examined. Thereafter, trial was fixed for recording of evidence of PWs at Sl.No.13, 14 and 16 on 03.06.2020 and PWs at Sl.No.17, 20, 21 and 24 on 04.06.2020, however because of circumstances prevailing, on account of COVID-19 pandemic, trial Court had postponed recording ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2020 20:19:32 :::HCHP 7 of evidence for 11.08.2020 and 13.08.2020 respectively but even on 11.08.2020 and 13.08.2020 no evidence was recorded and matter has been adjourned for 19.11.2020 and 20.11.2020 respectively for effective hearing.
.
9. It is also pointed out that, as noted by Court earlier also, witnesses are not being produced by the prosecution on the dates fixed by the trial Court, which is causing delay in the trial, resulting into serious prejudice to the personal liberty of the petitioners and further that despite passing of order by a Coordinate Bench of this Court expecting from the trial Court to make all out efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably on or before 31.12.2019, no serious efforts are being made by the prosecution and the trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest and since last three years during pendency of the trial, out of 29, only 12 witnesses have been examined despite the fact that all the witnesses are official witnesses.
10. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner Navjot Singh alternatively, that in case it is not found favourable by the Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail, at this stage, then in view of the snail pace progress of the trial, a time bound direction to complete the recording of evidence and conclude the trial be issued especially keeping in view the issue of personal liberty of petitioners as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that in case trial is not completed in the time bound manner, as may be directed by this Court, petitioners may be given liberty to file fresh bail application(s).
::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2020 20:19:32 :::HCHP 8
12. So far as prayer of the petitioners to grant them liberty to file fresh applications is concerned, in my opinion, an accused has a right to file successive bail applications, as permissible under law, and no liberty of this Court is necessary for filing such bail .
application either in this Court or in the Court of Sessions Judge having jurisdiction to decide the same. Therefore, this option is always available to petitioners.
13. It is also noticeable that this High Court vide Order/Circulation dated 07.08.2020 has already resumed the work of recording the evidence in the Subordinate Courts.
14. In the given facts and circumstances, particularly in view of order passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal, preferred by petitioner Manjeet Singh, I do not find any justifiable or plausible reason to enlarge the petitioners on bail, at this stage.
15. Accordingly, considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, including order passed by the Supreme Court as well as this High Court in petitions preferred earlier, and also submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, these petitions are dismissed but with a direction to the trial Court to ensure recording the evidence, at the earliest, preferably on or before 15.01.2021 and to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible latest by 15.03.2021.
16. For concluding the trial in time bound manner the Trial Court is also directed to take all effective steps warranted for the purpose including preponing the date if considered viable and necessary and also to issue summons to the concerned witnesses, if not already issued, for next date(s) already fixed or preponed as the case may be, by issuing appropriate directions and taking ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2020 20:19:32 :::HCHP 9 necessary measures for doing the same, as deemed fit and appropriate by it. Statements of witnesses, which are possible through Video Conferencing, may also be recorded accordingly as per prescribed procedure and law. Parties, including prosecution, .
are also directed to ensure active cooperation to the trial Court including effective representations on their behalf before the trial Court on each date fixed and to be fixed for recording the evidence and the dates subsequent thereto, fixed for further proceeding to conclude the trial so as to enable it to record the evidence at the earliest and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible as directed supra. Parties are also expected to avoid unnecessary adjournments.
17. With disposal of petitions in aforesaid terms it is made clear that observations made in these petition(s) hereinbefore shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application(s).
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the trial Court through E-mail.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
October 12, 2020 (Purohit) ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2020 20:19:32 :::HCHP