Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 1 March, 2011
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010
.....
Date of decision:1.3.2011
Avtar Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police,
Chandigarh
.....Respondent
....
Present: Mr. M.S. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Standing Counsel for the respondent-CBI.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
The petitioner Avtar Singh seeks regular bail in a case registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation (`CBI' - for short) on 9.12.2003 for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short) in respect of the murder of Ranjit Singh son of the complainant-Joginder Singh. Initially in respect of the death of Ranjit Singh aged 39 years, FIR No.312 dated 10.7.2002 was registered on the statement of his father Joginder Singh son of Amar Singh at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 and 34 IPC. It was alleged by Joginder Singh- complainant that he was irrigating his fields along with his labour on 10.7.2002, when Sukhdev Singh son of Inder Singh of the nearby village came to him and he was discussing regarding the electricity with him. At about 5.00 p.m., son of the complainant, namely, Ranjit Singh (deceased) came on his motorcycle and as usual got tea for the labour. After serving tea Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [2] to the labour when he was going back to the village on his motorcycle about one kilometer from the complainant, two young men came from the sugarcane field and two young men came out of the sugarcane field situated on the other side. They were carrying pistols in their hands and they blindly fired at the son of the complainant. On this, the complainant and Sukhdev Singh while raising `Lalkara' ran towards them but all the four boys along with their weapons ran towards the G.T. road and after sitting in a car which was parked at the G.T. road they fled away towards Pipli. The complainant and Sukhdev Singh asked for their Maruti car being brought from the village and they took Ranjit Singh from the spot in the car to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. The doctor after examination declared Ranjit Singh as dead. The complainant had a firm belief that his son Ranjit Singh had been killed by Ram Kumar Sarpanch of Khanpur Kolian and Raj Singh son of Sehdev Singh resident of Khanpur Kolian in connivance with other persons. The complainant had enmity with them because of the Panchayat elections. These persons had held out threats on various occasions that either the complainant should compromise with them or they would see him on the first available opportunity. On 10.7.2002, these two (Ram Kumar, Sarpanch and Raj Singh), it is alleged, in connivance with others had got the son of the complainant, namely, Ranjit Singh killed. The complainant and Sukhdev Singh could recognize these four boys if they came before them. The statement of the complainant Joginder Singh was recorded, which was read over to him and was found correct. It was requested for taking action.
The allegations in the above FIR are against Ram Kumar, Sarpanch and Raj Singh residents of Khanpur Kolian. The petitioner Avtar Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [3] Singh is not named as an accused. Joginder Singh-complainant made a supplementary statement on 24.8.2002 in continuation of his earlier statement. It is stated by Joginder Singh that he has five daughters and a son, namely, Ranjit Singh (deceased) aged 39/40 years. Ranjit Singh was attached with Satgur Tera Asra Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa (`Dera' - for short) for the last about 25 years and he had become a follower of the Dera. Ranjit Singh was also a member of the ten Member Committee of the Dera. He had one daughter from the marriage with his first wife who had died. He had a son and a daughter from his second wife. The daughters of Ranjit Singh and his sister Sarjivan were studying in Sacha Sauda School. One person, namely, Jasbir Singh was a very powerful person in the Dera. He had been allotted a Kothi in the Dera. He was in-charge of the Girls School; besides, was running a health club. Jasbir Singh used to admit the members in his area for Dera Dhan Dhan Satgur Tera Hi Asra. He also used to give substantial funds. Ranjit Singh had gone with a team to Gujarat after an earth-quake had occurred there. He stayed there for one month. The daughters of Ranjit Singh used to stay in the hostel of the Ashram. Ranjit Singh had got one room No.75 booked there. It is stated by the complainant that they had two telephones at their residence and Ranjit Singh had a mobile phone. In May 2002, an anonymous letter written by a girl was published in `Amar Ujala' newspaper which led to tension between Tarksheel Society and Dhan Dhan Satgur Tera Hi Asra workers. After this news item, it is alleged that Ranjit Singh (deceased) lost faith in the Dera and he even withdrew both his daughters from the Dera school. He himself started visiting the Dera infrequently after Balwant Singh, President of the Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [4] Tarksheel Society, Sirsa, Haryana condemned the incident in the Dera as mentioned in the news item. Tarksheel Society, Fatehabad, Ratia etc. also condemned the above mentioned incident of Dhan Dhan Satgur Tera Hi Asra. Dhan Dhan Satgur Tera Hi Asra, Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa protested against the condemnation. Protests were also raised in Punjab and Haryana. The workers of Dhan Dhan Satgur Tera Hi Asra of Fatehabad and Ratia even beat up the shopkeepers. Balwant Singh, President, Tarksheel Society, Sirsa had to face protests from the workers of the Dera. It is further stated that an anonymous letter written by a girl reached the office of Tarksheel Society and they started distributing the said letter. This led to increase in protest. The Head of Dera suspected that Ranjit Singh was not supporting the Dera but was supporting the propaganda of Tarksheel Society. On 16.6.2002, Ranjit Singh along with Subhash Khatri went to the Sirsa Dera. Darshan Singh who was in-charge of the said Dera levelled allegations against Ranjit Singh and even threatened him. Jasbir Singh and Randhi Sahib also threatened him. Ranjit Singh when he came back at his house told the complainant Joginder Singh and his mother about the allegations made against him and the threats that were held out. About two weeks thereafter i.e. between 26.6.2002 to 28.6.2002, Jasbir Singh and his another companion came to the house of the complainant in a blue colour Tata Safari. They held Ranjit Singh responsible for the propaganda carried out by Tarksheel Society. They even threatened Ranjit Singh. The complainant was present at that time. The complainant made Jasbir Singh and the other person understand and sent them back. They, however, took Ranjit Singh to the side and said something on which Ranjit Singh got perplexed.
Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [5] Afterwards Jasbir Singh on two-three occasions telephoned and wanted to talk to Ranjit Singh. The complainant heard those phone calls and when he asked Ranjit Singh to attend his phone calls he used to avoid it by saying that he did not want to talk to Jasbir Singh. It is stated by the complainant Joginder Singh that as he was under a shock and was perplexed due to the murder of his only son, he could not mention these facts in the FIR. He was confident that due to the circumstances and from his inquiry, his son had been murdered by the management of the Dhan Dhan Satgur Tera Hi Asra Dera Sacha Sauda through Jasbir Singh and his associates after hatching a conspiracy due to the grudge of the above incident. They had also come to know that Jasbir Singh along with his companions was seen moving in the village on 6.7.2002. He had made a statement and heard it which was correct.
From the said statement, it transpires that the complainant mentioned regarding the involvement of Jasbir Singh of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa in the murder of his son. He also made statements on 24.11.2002 and 3.12.2002. A letter was written by Joginder Singh-complainant on 4.10.2002 to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, which was treated as Criminal Misc. No.47485 of 2002 in Criminal Misc. No.M-26994 of 2002. Criminal Misc. No.M-26994 of 2002 was with respect to an anonymous letter written by an innocent and aggrieved girl (a Sadhvi) of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, making allegations of sexual abuse of girls at Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, by the head of the Dera. The letter which was received in the High Court was ordered to be put up on the judicial file. On 19.07.2002, notice of motion was issued to Advocate General, Haryana. On 3.9.2002, Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [6] this Court having regard to the nature of allegations, observed that it would be in the interest of justice if the District and Sessions Judge, Sirsa, makes a personal visit to the Dera at the earliest along with such other authorities as he may consider appropriate to associate. A report was asked to be submitted to this Court before the next date. The District and Sessions Judge, Sirsa, it was observed, may also give suggestions as to what further order was to be passed in the matter. On 24.09.2002, a report was received from the District and Sessions Judge, Sirsa, which indicated that the possibility of the acts, alleged in the letter, could not be ruled out. A further suggestion was made that truth could be ascertained if the matter was secretly got investigated through a Central Agency. This Court, having regard to the serious nature of allegations and also the recommendations made by the District and Sessions Judge, Sirsa, referred the matter to the CBI. Joginder Singh-complainant in his said letter addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court stated that his only son was murdered in broad daylight on 10.07.2002. It is stated that the persons running Dera Sacha Sauda had a suspicion that his (Joginder Singh's) son Ranjit Singh was behind the circulation of copies of the letter written by a girl against the Dera Sacha Sauda to the Prime Minister Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The said letter had appeared in various newspapers in the month of April-May and Shri Balwant Singh, resident of village Khanpur (Kolian), District President of Tarksheel Society, had distributed the copies of the said letter amongst the people. It is stated that the son of the complainant had an association with the Dera for the last 20 years and was a member of the ten Members Committee for a number of years.On coming to know about the misdeeds of Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [7] the Dera for the last 2-2½ years, he had withdrawn his children from the Dera school. The person belonging to the Dera had leveled allegations against his son that he had distributed the said letter in District Kurukshetra and had started a propaganda against the Dera. It is further mentioned that this Court had already entrusted an enquiry regarding the said letter to the CBI. It is stated that in this regard, Jasbir Singh son of Randhir, Incharge of the Girls School, Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa, had issued threats on 26.06.2002 in the village that Ranjit Singh should tender an apology at the Dera, otherwise he would have to face dire consequences. Then, Jasbir Singh again came to village Khanpur Kolian on 06.07.2002 at about 4.00-5.00 P.M. and threatened his (Joginder Singh's) son that in case he (Ranjit Singh) did not tender an apology at the Dera, he would not be spared. On this, Ranjit Singh son of the complainant told the complainant that he had not indulged in any mischief nor had any connection with the said letter and there was no reason for him to seek an apology. On 10.07.2002 at about 5.00 P.M., the son of the complainant had gone to the field after taking tea for the servants. When he was returning from the field at about 5.30 P.M., bullets were fired upon him. Four persons, armed with revolvers, were standing in the sugarcane field and after catching hold of his son, they fired shots in his head, as a result of which, he (Ranjit Singh) died at the spot and the assailants drove away in their car, which was parked on the road. He had a strong suspicion that Jasbir Singh son of Shri Randhir was behind this murder. Shri Randhir was Incharge of the girls' school at Sirsa Dera. The persons of the Dera were influential and openly boasted that they had formed the Government and as such, nobody could harm them. The son of Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [8] the complainant had got sent wheat, rice and chaff worth lacs of rupees for the victims of the Gujrat earthquake. Besides, 5-6 years earlier to that, he had got sent lacs of rupees for the Dera from his pocket and also by collecting the amount from the people. It was, therefore, prayed that a thorough enquiry be got conducted regarding the murder of his son and the case may kindly be entrusted to the CBI for the enquiry.
The investigation in the present case had been transferred from the District Police to C.I.D. Crime Branch, Haryana on 22.11.2002. In the statement of Joginder Singh-complainant recorded on 24.11.2002, he named Sabdil Singh Gunman of Baba Gurmeet Singh as the person who had visited his house with Jasbir Singh and threatened his son and that he (Sabdil Singh) was also involved in the murder of Ranjit Singh, the son of the complainant Joginder Singh. Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh were arrested by the C.I.D. Crime Branch, Haryana on 02.12.2002. The charge-sheet (challan) was filed by the Haryana Police on 17.2.2003 against Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh alleging commission of offences under Sections 120-B, 302 and 34 IPC. A supplementary charge-sheet was also filed by the Haryana Police on 17.7.2003 against Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh. Thereafter, this Court on 10.11.2003 in Criminal Misc. No.47485 of 2003 in Criminal Misc. No.M-26994 of 2002 i.e. the letter written by the complainant Joginder Singh to the Chief Justice of this Court directed the present case to be investigated by the CBI. The CBI on 9.12.2003 registered case RC-8(S)/2003/SCB/CHG.
The CBI during the investigation found that Ranjit Singh (deceased) was follower of Dera Sacha Sauda since 1975 and was a member Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [9] of the ten Member Committee for Haryana since 1998. His two daughters Ritu and Gitu were admitted in the Dera school and they used to stay inside the Dera. In 1999, the younger sister of Ranjit Singh (deceased) became a Sadhvi in the Dera and started teaching in the girls' school. During the year 2000 Ranjit Singh (deceased) started to disassociate himself from the Dera and withdrew his daughters and sister from the Dera. He had also told one of his relatives that he wasted his 20/25 years of life in the Dera. In the investigations, it has been brought out by the CBI that an anonymous letter from a Sadhvi was addressed to the Prime Minister of India in which she alleged sexual abuse and exploitation by Baba Gurmeet Singh, Head of the Dera. The letter was circulated in the print media. This Court vide order dated 3.9.2002 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-26994 of 2002 got an inquiry conducted through the District and Sessions Judge, Sirsa and thereafter in terms of order dated 24.9.2002 directed the C.B.I. to investigate the allegations with respect to the anonymous letter. The members and followers of Sacha Sauda started a look out for the persons who had circulated the said anonymous letter. The letter contained a reference to a Dera follower of Kurukshetra who had withdrawn his sister from the Dera and it was suspected that he got the said letter circulated. The persons from the Dera had started visiting the house of Ranjit Singh (deceased) in Village Khanpur Kolian, District Kurukshetra. As per CBI investigations Ranjit Singh went to the Dera on 16.6.2002 and at that time he was kidnapped by Chander Khatri. He was threatened in the Dera by Krishan Lal, Jasbir Singh, Avtar Singh (petitioner), Inder Sain etc. On 26.6.2002, three persons came to the house of Ranjit Singh (deceased) and Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [10] they were identified as Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh and Krishan Lal. Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh went inside the house and threatened Ranjit Singh to seek pardon from Baba Gurmeet Singh for the anonymous letter that he had circulated and that if he did not seek pardon it would not be good for him and he would not be spared. On 16.7.2002, Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh met Ranjit Singh (deceased) at his house in Village Khanpur Kolian and threatened him that Baba Gurmeet Singh suspected him for circulating the letter and that he could seek pardon from the Baba otherwise they had orders to kill him. During investigation, a notice was issued to the petitioner in terms of Section 160 Criminal Procedure Code (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) on 15.6.2005 asking him to appear before the Investigating Officer on 27.6.2005. Avtar Singh (petitioner) appeared before the Investigating Officer on 27.6.2005 and gave his consent for polygraph examination. Polygraph examination of Avtar Singh (petitioner) was carried out during the period from 18.7.2005 to 21.7.2005 and according to the CBI it revealed extensive deceptions in the replies given by him. On 31.8.2005, Krishan Lal was arrested by the CBI but Avtar Singh (petitioner) did not appear before the CBI. The Investigating Officer visited Sirsa and issued fresh notice for appearance of the petitioner which was not received by him. The same was thus pasted on the main gate of his residence and also on the residence of his parents. Avtar Singh (petitioner) filed an application in the Court of Special Judge, Ambala for the grant of pre-arrest bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Ambala on 24.11.2005. A supplementary charge-sheet was filed by the CBI on 25.11.2005 against the accused Krishan Lal, Sabdil Singh and Jasbir Singh in respect of the offence Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [11] under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 506 IPC. Further investigations were conducted by the CBI. Avtar Singh (petitioner) filed Criminal Misc. No.M-63954 of 2005 in this Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail. This Court granted interim bail to him and directed him to appear before the CBI on 12.12.2005. In consequence to the order passed by this Court, Avtar Singh appeared in the CBI Office and was examined in the presence of independent witnesses. According to the CBI, the petitioner was non-cooperative and sought time for replying to the questions put to him by the Investigating Officer. The application for pre-arrest bail filed by Avtar Singh was dismissed by this Court on 7.2.2006. Notice in terms of Section 160 Cr.P.C. was again issued to Avtar Singh (petitioner) on 17.6.2002. Another notice was issued for his appearance on 20.2.2006. The notices were received back unserved. Fresh notice was sent through S.P., Sirsa to Avtar Singh for his appearance on 27.3.2006. The notice could not be served as Avtar Singh (petitioner) was not found at his known address. On 21.4.2006, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, CBI issued non-bailable warrants. The same were sent through S.P., Sirsa for execution. Non-bailable warrants remained unexecuted as Avtar Singh (petitioner) could not be traced. Accordingly, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. were ordered by the Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ambala on 9.9.2006. In consequence of the proceedings ordered by the Court, Avtar Singh (petitioner) surrendered before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Ambala on 6.11.2006 and since then is in custody.
The role of the petitioner-Avtar Singh has been primarily brought out in the statement made by Khatta Singh on 26.12.2006 in which Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [12] he inter alia stated that on 16.6.2002 Ranjit Singh (deceased) was called to Dera Sacha Sauda and was asked to apologize before the Baba by Avtar Singh (petitioner), Inder Sain, Krishan Lal and Darshan Singh. When Ranjit Singh did not agree, they told him to be ready to die. Khatta Singh also stated that after the murder of Ranjit Singh on 10.7.2002 he had seen Avtar Singh (petitioner), Inder Sain, Krishan Lal, Jasbir Singh and Constable Sabdil Singh, Gunman of Baba Gurmeet Singh celebrating in the night at Kashish Restaurant and claiming that they had eliminated the traitor. The CBI on 1.2.2007 filed a supplementary charge-sheet (challan) against the accused Inder Sain and Avtar Singh (petitioner) alleging the commission of offences under Section 120-B read with Section 302 and 506 IPC and for their trial along with those who had already been sent-up for trial. On 22.6.2007, Khatta Singh made a statement in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in which he inter alia mentioned regarding the involvement of Avtar Singh (petitioner) and others. Supplementary charge-sheet was filed by CBI on 30.7.2007 against accused Baba Gurmeet Singh for the offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 302 and 506 IPC along with accused already charge- sheeted. Avtar Singh had filed a petition for grant of regular bail in this Court i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-40256 of 2007 which was dismissed on 7.4.2008. Another petition i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-18247 of 2008 was filed by Avtar Singh which was also dismissed on 3.12.2008. The charges were framed against the accused persons by the trial Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Ambala on 12.12.2008. Thereafter, another petition filed by Avtar Singh i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-34957 of 2009 was dismissed Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [13] on 17.12.2009. The petitioner now seeks bail by way of present petition.
Shri M.S. Joshi, Advocate learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner during investigation of the case had cooperated with the CBI. He subjected himself to polygraph test during the period from 18.7.2005 to 21.7.2005. It is submitted that CBI had summoned the petitioner on 31.8.2005. However, Krishan Lal, who was also summoned was picked up by the CBI on 30.8.2005 and said Krishan Lal filed two cases against the CBI. Therefore, the petitioner did not appear as he apprehended that he would also be picked up and illegally detained. It is submitted that the petitioner did not appear before the CBI on 21.11.2005 as was directed by the learned Special Judge, Ambala as the order for directing the petitioner to appear was without any protection from arrest in the event of his arrest. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Special Judge, Ambala on 24.11.2005. The petitioner then filed an application for pre-arrest bail i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-63954 of 2005 in this Court. In consequence of the interim bail granted by this Court, the petitioner appeared before the CBI on 12.12.2005 and was examined in the presence of independent witnesses. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 7.2.2006. It is submitted that the petitioner of his own had surrendered in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ambala on 6.11.2006 and since then he is in custody whereas Baba Gurmeet Singh who is the head of the Dera and the main accused in the case; besides, has also been named as an accused on the statement of Khatta Singh has been granted pre-arrest bail by this Court in the present case vide order Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [14] dated 17.9.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-42868 of 2007. Thereafter in consequence of the anticipatory bail granted by this Court, he has been granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala on 25.10.2007without him being confined to custody. Therefore, it is submitted that keeping in view the long incarceration of the petitioner in jail and the fact that the trial in the case has not made much progress, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is given parity with Baba Gurmeet Singh. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is one of conspiracy, which is to be established by the prosecution by leading evidence.
In response, Shri S.S. Sandhu, learned standing counsel for the respondent-CBI has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a close associate and relative of Baba Gurmeet Singh Head of the Dera. A reference has been made to the statements of Khatta Singh recorded by the CBI on 26.12.2006 and that recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 22.6.2007 in which Khatta Singh has named the petitioner as one of the conspirators. It is submitted that Ranjit Singh (deceased) was called to the Dera Sacha Sauda by Inder Sain, Avtar Singh (petitioner) and others on 16.6.2002 and he (Ranjit Singh) was threatened to seek apology from Gurmeet Singh but Ranjit Singh did not apologize and returned from the Dera. On the refusal of Ranjit Singh to seek an apology, Avtar Singh (petitioner), Inder Sain, Krishan Lal, Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh and others had hatched a criminal conspiracy to eliminate Ranjit Singh and it is in consequence of the said criminal conspiracy that Ranjit Singh was shot dead Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [15] by accused Krishan Lal, Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh on 10.7.2002 at Khanpur Kolian, District Kurukshetra. It is submitted that a supplementary charge-sheet dated 1.2.2007 was filed against Avtar Singh (petitioner) and Inder Sain for commission of offence under Section 120-B read with Sections 506 and 302 IPC along with accused already charge-sheeted. It is submitted that Khatta Singh has stated that on the order of Gurmeet Singh, his close associates Krishan Lal, Inder Sain and Avtar Singh (petitioner) tried to identify the persons behind the circulation of the anonymous letter and they all suspected the hand of Ranjit Singh. It is submitted that when Ranjit Singh had left the Dera, Gurmeet Singh held a meting with the petitioner Avtar Singh, Inder Sain, Krishan Lal, Sabdil Singh and Jasbir Singh as also Khatta Singh. During the meeting Baba Gurmeet Singh was very angry and he asked these persons to go to the village of Ranjit Singh and eliminate him. It is submitted that Khatta Singh in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has corroborated the said facts. The petitioner was subjected to lie detection test during which extensive deceptions were noticed. It is also stated that Avtar Singh (petitioner), Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh, Inder Sain and Krishan Lal were seen celebrating at Kashish Restaurant during the night of 10.7.2002 after the murder of Ranjit Singh claiming that they had eliminated a traitor. It is submitted that the fact that Avtar Singh was celebrating at Kashish Restaurant during the night on 10.7.2002 is not a circumstance which is attributed to Gurmeet Singh who has been granted bail. Therefore, there is no parity between the two. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has already framed charges against the accused as well as Baba Gurmeet Singh, Sabdil Singh, Jasbir Singh, Krishan Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [16] Lal and Inder Sain for the offences under Sections 302, 120-B and 506 IPC. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence has been recorded in the case by the trial Court. It is also submitted that earlier bail applications of the petitioner have been dismissed. Therefore, no ground is made out for grant of bail to him.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The case relates to the murder of Ranjit Singh son of the complainant Joginder Singh on 10.7.2002. The said Ranjit Singh was a follower of Dera Sacha Sauda and he is said to have got disheartened from the activities of the Dera and had started disassociating himself from the Dera. It is alleged that the Dera apprehended that he was responsible for the propaganda behind the circulation of an anonymous letter of a Sadhvi alleging sexual abuse and exploitation of Sadhvis by Gurmeet Singh, Head of the Dera. According to the prosecution, Gurmeet Singh, Head of the Dera, Inder Sain, Manager of the Dera, Avtar Singh (petitioner) and important functionaries of the Dera, Krishan Lal, Prabandhak of the Dera, Jasbir Singh and Constable Sabdil Singh a bodyguard of Gurmeet Singh entered into a criminal conspiracy to kill Ranjit Singh and in pursuance thereof Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh and Krishan Lal shot and killed Ranjit Singh on 10.7.2002.
The prosecution case regarding involvement of the petitioner in the conspiracy is brought out from the statements made by Khatta Singh, particularly, the statement made on 22.6.2007 before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. In the said statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it has inter alia been alleged by Khatta Singh that he had taken `naam' in the Dera in 1970. His house was near the Dera and, Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [17] therefore, in the morning and evening he used to daily visit the Dera. In this manner, he had got quite close to Baba Gurmeet Singh. The Baba made him driver of a bus. The Baba used to travel in that bus those days. He and another driver, namely, Gurdial Singh used to drive this bus in Sirsa in both the Deras and some time to various places outside he used to take the Baba for Satsang. Ranjit Singh son of Joginder Singh was a staunch `Premi' (follower) of the Dera. He was resident of Khanpur Kolian, District Kurukshetra. Khatta Singh knew him from 1990. He later became a member of the ten Member Committee of Haryana. After the employment of Khatta Singh as driver, two daughters of Ranjit Singh were admitted in the school and college of the Dera. In 1999, the sister of Ranjit Singh, whose name was Sarjivan started residing in the Dera as a Sadhvi. Sarjivan used to teach the girls in the old Dera and used to stay there in the girls' hostel. In April 2001 Ranjit Singh withdrew both his daughters and sister from the Dera and he himself started remaining away from the Dera. When Ranjit Singh withdrew his daughters and sister from the Dera, then he (Khatta Singh) asked him the reason for this and then Ranjit Singh informed him that by staying in the Dera he had got disappointed and worried. Khatta Singh later came to know from some members of the management that his sister Sarjivan had been sexually abused by Baba Gurmeet Singh, therefore, Ranjit Singh had left the Dera. During May 2002, an anonymous letter written to some newspapers by a Sadhvi was published in some newspapers in which allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation were made against Baba Gurmeet Singh on the Sadhvis at the Dera. The copies of this anonymous letter were distributed amongst the people. Krishan Lal Dera Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [18] Manager, Darshan Singh Dera Management Member, Inder Sain Dera Manager, Avtar Singh Member Dera Management (petitioner) on the directions of Baba Gurmeet Singh searched for the person who had distributed the letter. During this period on their asking some followers of the Dera had threatened the newspaper in which the letter was published. Many persons were beaten and threatened. Krishan Lal, Darshan Singh, Inder Sain and Avtar Singh (petitioner) suspected that Ranjit Singh was the person who had a hand in the publication and distribution of this letter. These persons repeatedly asked about this. Then on 16.6.2002, Khatta Singh saw Ranjit Singh at the Dera and he (Ranjit Singh) told Khatta Singh that Baba Gurmeet Singh and the above mentioned management members had called him. Khatta Singh saw that Avtar Singh (petitioner), Inder Sain, Krishan Lal and Darshan Singh had encircled Ranjit Singh and they were pressurizing him (Ranjit Singh) to apologize before Baba Gurmeet Singh for distributing the anonymous letter of the Sadhvi. When Ranjit Singh was not ready to seek apology then he was told that he should be ready to die. Ranjit Singh was also called by Baba Gurmeet Singh. Ranjit Singh was asked to start staying and start work at the Dera as he was doing earlier. However, Ranjit Singh refused and he went away from the Dera. It is stated that on account of Ranjit Singh not apologizing and thereafter on his refusal to work, Baba Gurmeet Singh in his enclosure called a meeting of the members of the management whose names he had mentioned. In that meeting Khatta Singh, Jasbir Singh and Sabdil Singh, who was gunman of the Baba, were also present and there was a detailed discussion in this meeting regarding the conduct of Ranjit Singh. When these persons were Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [19] carrying out the meeting, Khatta Singh was standing nearby and hearing. Baba Gurmeet Singh was very annoyed with Ranjit Singh. Baba Gurmeet Singh then asked all the persons there that before Ranjit Singh says something against him (Gurmeet Singh) and the Dera, they should go to the village and finish him. On 10.7.2002, in the evening Khatta Singh came to know that Ranjit Singh had been killed by firing at him at his village Khanpur Kolian. On that evening he saw Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh and Krishan Lal celebrating in front of Kashish Hotel. When they were celebrating then Khatta Singh had heard them saying that they had finished a traitor; Ranjit Singh. It is further stated by Khatta Singh that in the new and old Deras, Baba Gurmeet Singh has separate enclosures. In the old Dera there is a girls hostel from which one gate goes to the enclosure of the Baba. At this gate, there is a duty of a Sadhvi day and night. The duty is fixed by a Sadhvi by the name of Sheela Punia. Apart from Sheela, Gurjot or Preeti Sadhvis are quite near Baba Gurmeet Singh. These three and other Sadhvis are assigned duties. Khatta Singh had heard regarding one Sadhvi that she has been assigned duty at the gate of the enclosure but she declined to go inside the enclosure. The said Sadhvi had left the Dera and had run away to her home but her parents had again left her at the Dera. Thereafter, a mention has been made in the said statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. regarding the murder of Ram Chander Chhatarpati of Sirsa by Kuldip Singh and Nirmal Singh, who it is alleged repeatedly published derogatory articles about Baba Gurmeet Singh in the newspaper `Pura Sach'. It is alleged that Ram Chander Chhatarpati was murdered on the asking of Baba Gurmeet Singh. It is stated by Khatta Singh that on account of the wrong doings of Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [20] Baba Gurmeet Singh like murder of Ram Chander Chhatarpati and sexual abuse of Sadhvis he was quite fed-up. However, on account of fear he could not do anything. Baba and his companions were very dangerous and powerful. He was quite worried about his own and his family's well being. When the CBI registered a case then he wanted to tell the truth. However, on account of his own and his family's life and security, he kept quite but when he saw that the CBI initiated proceedings against Avtar Singh and other members then he had got strength to tell the truth. On being summoned by the CBI, he went to Chandigarh office and informed DSP Amarjit Singh in December 2006 about the murder of Ranjit Singh but he felt that the men of Baba were following him and he would be killed and he told DSP Amarjit Singh that he would come later after he felt secure about his own safety and that of his family for giving his statement. He had stopped meeting Baba Gurmeet Singh and his men. Even then on the asking of Baba Gurmeet Singh, his men were keeping a watch at his house. They were pressurizing him for not making a statement. His house had been encircled by the men of Baba Gurmeet Singh for quite some time and he had been wandering around here and there and when he felt secure, he was making his statement of his own accord and without any pressure.
It may be noticed that Khatta Singh is one of the witnesses whose statements the investigating authorities have also recorded. He is a witness to prove the conspiracy that had been hatched by the Head of the Dera with his confidants including Avtar Singh (petitioner). The prosecution case is that it is in consequence of the said conspiracy that Ranjit Singh was killed on 10.7.2002 by Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh and Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [21] Krishan Lal. The petitioner is one of the conspirators. It may be noticed that Baba Gurmeet Singh filed Criminal Misc. No.M-42868 of 2007 in this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in the present case which was disposed of 17.9.2007 along with Criminal Misc. No.M-42972 of 2007 and Criminal Misc. No.M-42874 of 2007 in which he (Gurmeet Singh) had prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail in three cases registered against him. Criminal Misc. No.M-42972 of 2007 related to FIR RC No.5(S)/2002/SIU-XV/Chandigarh dated 12.12.2002 for the offences under Sections 376, 506 and 509 IPC. In the said petition, Gurmeet Singh, Head of the Dera is the sole accused. The said FIR/RC No.5(S)/2002/SIU-SV/CHD registered on 12.12.2002 was regarding sexual exploitation of Sadhvis by the petitioner therein. Criminal Misc. No.M-42868 of 2007 related to the murder of Ranjit Singh which is subject matter of the present case and Criminal Misc. No.M-42874 of 2007 related to FIR/RC No.10(S)/2003/SCB/CHG dated 9.12.2002 regarding the murder of Ram Chander Chhatarpati-a journalist. As already notice, this Court vide order dated 24.9.2002 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-26994 of 2002 relating to anonymous letter written by a Sadhvi at the Dera had directed the CBI to investigate the allegations. It may be noticed that thereafter, 22 Sadhvis of the Dera filed Criminal Misc. No.44507 of 2002 in Criminal Misc. No.M-26994 of 2002 seeking recall of the order dated 24.09.2002, whereby this Court had directed the CBI to investigate the allegations. In terms of the order dated 22.10.2002, this Court found no ground to vary the order already passed. The said petition, was ordered to be heard further on 10.04.2003 when the main matter was to come up for hearing. Thereafter, Criminal Misc. No.45153 of 2002 in Criminal Misc.
Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [22] No.M-26994 of 2002 was filed by the Dera Sacha Sauda alleging that the allegations in the complaint were false and there was no need of any investigation by the CBI on the anonymous complaint. This Court vide order dated 28.10.2002 held that there was no ground to reconsider the order dated 24.09.2002 passed by this Court, as the investigation would merely bring out the truth and the matter would be considered by this Court in the light of the report from the CBI. The murder cases of Ranjit Singh and Ram Chander Chhatarpati were transferred to the CBI by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.11.2003 passed in Criminal Misc. No.M-26994 of 2002. The Supreme Court had initially stayed the proceedings in the three cases vide orders dated 15.12.2003 and 23.1.2004. The said stay was, however, vacated on 29.10.2004. On completion of the investigation, the CBI filed charge-report (challan) in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Ambala which was the committing Court. The said Court had summoned the accused of the said case i.e. Gurmeet Singh for 31.8.2007 in all the three cases. It is in consequence thereof that the said accused therein in the said cases filed three petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail i.e. Criminal Misc. No.M-42868 of 2007 relating to murder of Ranjit Singh, Criminal Misc. No.M-42874 of 2007 relating to murder of Ram Chander Chhatarpati and Criminal Misc. No.M-42972 of 2007 relating to offences of rape etc. against Baba Gurmeet Singh, who was the sole accused in the said case. This Court vide order dated 17.9.2007 granted protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to Baba Gurmeet Singh in all the three cases till decision of his petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the trial Court/Sessions Court. This Court did not hear arguments on Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [23] merits of the cases. It was observed that hearing of arguments on merits in the three petitions and any decision thereon by this Court may prejudice either side during hearing of regular petitions by the trial Court or even during trial of the cases. Therefore, this Court refrained from entering into merits of the cases. SLP (Criminal) No.6583 of 2007 titled Aridaman Chhatarpati v. Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim and another was filed in the Supreme Court against the order dated 17.09.2007 passed by this Court granting anticipatory bail in the three cases and on 3.10.2007 as per the Supreme Court website the following order was passed:-
"Taken on Board.
Permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed."
After the grant of pre-arrest bail, the accused-Baba Gurmeet Singh in the present case i.e. RC No.8(S)/2003/SCB/CHG dated 09.12.2003, filed an application for regular bail on 04.10.2007 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. The said Court, vide order dated 25.10.2007, granted bail to the accused-Baba Gurmeet Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, while allowing bail to the accused- Baba Gurmeet Singh observed that this Court had observed that the circumstance that a person has been at large and free for several years during the course of investigation was held to be a material circumstance to be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail. A reference was also made to the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aridaman Chhatarpati (supra), whereby special leave to appeal petition had been dismissed. It was observed that the grant of Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [24] concession of anticipatory bail in all the three cases by the High Court till decision of the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was a strong circumstance which has to be taken into consideration at the time of disposal of the application for bail, especially when there was no material change in the circumstances of the case thereafter. Insofar as the threat to the witnesses was concerned, it was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that there was nothing on the record to show that the accused therein, during the investigation till the filing of the challan/charge-sheet or till the passing of the order dated 17.09.2007 extended any threat to the witnesses or the complainant and if there had been any such threat, the same would have been brought to the notice of the High Court at the time of passing of the order dated 17.09.2007. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, having considered the entire matter and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, was of the considered opinion that the accused therein, deserved to be enlarged on bail and accordingly, the bail application was allowed.
The CBI has filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to Baba Gurmeet Singh, which is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, CBI, since December, 2007. During the pendency of the present petition also, learned counsel appearing for the CBI had stated that it was making efforts and taking effective steps to get the bail of the main accused cancelled. It is, however, stated that despite its best efforts, the application regarding cancellation of bail of one of the main accused has not been disposed of. It was, however, stated that the case before the learned Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [25] trial Court is being taken up on day to day basis. It may be noticed that there are 75 witnesses in the case and till 17.1.2011, the evidence of 13 witnesses had been recorded. Therefore, it may be noticed that though the petitioner is in custody since 6.11.2006 for a period of more than four years, however, his co-accused Baba Gurmeet Singh has not remained confined in custody for a single day and was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 17.09.2007 in three cases registered against him with the direction to appear before the trial Court on or before 4.10.2007 and if he filed a petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in the three cases he was ordered to be released on interim bail on his furnishing bail bond to the satisfaction of the Court till the decision of his petition for regular bail. The learned trial Court granted regular bail to Baba Gurmeet Singh on 25.10.2007 without his being confined to custody. The petitioner, as already noticed, is in custody since 6.11.2006; besides, out 75 witnesses till the month of January 2011 the statements of only 13 had been recorded. Therefore, the trial in the case is likely to take time.
It is admitted case between the parties that Baba Gurmeet Singh had been granted regular bail by the Sessions Court and he was not taken in custody. An application for cancellation of the bail has been filed by the CBI, which is pending and has not been disposed of. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner if the main accused Baba Gurmeet Singh has been granted regular bail without being confined to custody, there is no justification for keeping the petitioner incarcerated. The petitioner indeed is in custody since the date of his arrest. The petitioner had surrendered in the Court on 6.11.2006 and was arrested and since then he is in custody for a Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [26] period of about more than four years.
The earlier petitions filed by the petitioner for grant of bail were dismissed by this Court. The petitioner had filed Criminal Misc. No.M-40256 of 2007 seeking regular bail which was dismissed by this Court on 7.4.2008. It was observed that in the polygraphic test which was conducted extensive deceptions were noticed. Besides, there were allegations that he was a conspirator. Moreover, as alleged by the CBI the petitioner was non-co-operative during investigation and he did not appear after service of notice upon him and he continued to abscond and surrendered under forced circumstances in the Court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Ambala when proceedings under Sections 82 as well as 83 Cr.P.C. were resorted to. It was observed that there was an ocular account. The petitioner thereafter filed Criminal Misc. No.M-18427 of 2008 which was dismissed on 3.12.2008. It was held that if the petitioner is admitted to bail he may abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence or deter the remaining prosecution witnesses to depose in the Court against them. The petitioner then filed Criminal Misc. No.M-34957 of 2009 which was dismissed by this Court on 17.12.2009 and the following order was passed:-
"The primary submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the main accused, who is a Baba, has been granted anticipatory bail by this court and subsequently regular bail, but the persons like the petitioner, who are alleged to have conspired in this case are behind bar for prolonged period. The present application is a third attempt on the part of the Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [27] petitioner to seek bail.
There is some justification in the grievance made by the petitioner. In fact, one of the bail petition of co-accused had earlier been fixed before this court when CBI had made some statement that they would seek cancellation of bail of the main accused. As per the counsel, application though filed but was not pursued. The CBI will consider why the undertaking given to this court has not been honoured and why the application for cancellation of bail filed has not been pursued. CBI may still consider in case it is appropriate to seek cancellation of bail of the main accused.
Dismissed."
A perusal of the above order shows that this Court found some justification in the grievance made by the petitioner. However, it is on the statement of the CBI in the case of a co-accused that it would pursue the cancellation of bail of the main accused that the petition for bail filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. Application seeking cancellation of bail of the main accused Baba Gurmeet Singh, as already noticed, is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court since December 2007.
Learned counsel for the CBI has referred to the cases of Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director, 2007 (1) RCR (Cr.) 166 (SC) and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav, 2005 (1) RCR (Cr.) 703 (SC). In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav v. CBI through its Director (supra) it was held by the Supreme Court that there is no absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [28] granted by the Court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said that there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted. There is no dispute to the said proposition. However, it is not in dispute that an accused has a right of speedy trial which is enshrined by the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In case of any infraction of the constitutional guarantee the Court can pass remedial orders including that of grant of bail. It may be noticed that the accused in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav's case (supra) was facing trial in a triple murder case and had been in jail for six years. However, all the prosecution witnesses had been examined and the bail was refused. Therefore, the said case was nearing completion as all prosecution witnesses had been examined whereas the same is not the stage in the present case. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav (supra) it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the accused has a right to make successive applications for bail, but not on a ground already rejected by the Court. It was observed that the Court cannot re-appreciate the same ground and grant bail. It may, however, be noticed that in the present case the case petitioner for the grant of concession of bail is urged keeping in view his long incarceration for a period of more than four years whereas the main accused has been granted the concession of bail without being confined to custody. Besides, in the earlier orders declining bail to the petitioner Avtar Singh it was observed that he did not co-operate during investigation and had made deceptions in the polygraphic test. However, in the order dated 17.12.2009, as referred to above, this Court Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [29] found some justification in the grievance of the petitioner that the main accused had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and subsequently regular bail but the petitioner who is said to have conspired had been behind the bars for a prolonged period. However, the petition for bail was dismissed as the CBI had stated that they would seek cancellation of bail of the main accused. Despite lapse of a period of more than one year of the passing of the order on 17.12.2009, the matter regarding cancellation of bail of the main accused has not been disposed of. Therefore, in the present case the grounds already rejected by this Court are not being re-appreciated. As such, the ratio of the judgment in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav (supra) would be inapplicable.
Learned counsel for the CBI has also laid considerable emphasis on the fact that in the statement of Khatta Singh it has been alleged that he had seen the accused including the petitioner celebrating at Kashish Restaurant after the murder of Ranjit Singh. It may, however, be noticed that Khatta Singh in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not shown to have made a mention regarding the petitioner celebrating at Kashish Restaurant after the murder of Ranjit Singh. In any case, this aspect is to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court after evidence has been led and this Court while taking-up the matter regarding grant of bail is not to go into this aspect. The petitioner who is an accused in the case undisputedly has a right to speedy trial. Whenever there is a delay in the trial of the case remedial orders including grant of bail can be passed. The role attributed to the petitioner it may be noticed is not one of actual assault by resorting to firing on the person of Ranjit Singh but he is Cr. Misc. No.M-7206 of 2010 [30] said to have participated in the conspiracy which is to be established and proved by the prosecution in the trial Court. The apprehension expressed that the petitioner may abscond can be safeguarded by asking him to furnish two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In the circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been in custody for more than four years, the trial in the case has not made substantial progress; besides, the main accused has not been in custody for a single day as also the fact that the petitioner is not one of the persons who is said to have fired on the person of Ranjit Singh and is alleged to be a part of the conspiracy only it would be just and expedient to grant the concession of bail.
Accordingly, the petitioner Avtar Singh on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala shall be admitted to bail. One of the sureties shall be of a respectable person who shall undertake that the petitioner while on bail shall maintain peace and shall not, in any manner, interfere with the prosecution witnesses and in case of doing so the bail that has been granted shall be cancelled.
March 1, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*