Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarpreet Singh Narula @ Prince Narula vs State Of Punjab on 4 September, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.24786 OF 2012 (O&M) :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 04, 2012
Amarpreet Singh Narula @ Prince Narula
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Vibhor Bansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
This is second attempt on the part of the petitioner to seek bail for an offence registered against him along with his co- accused under Sections 302/34/120-B IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
No doubt, the first bail application filed by the petitioner was not dismissed on merit but was got dismissed as withdrawn. The order ofcourse is to this effect, but otherwise counsel for one of the co-accused of the petitioner, with which the bail application of the petitioner was earlier heard and listed before this court, was heard for quite some time and only thereafter the petitioner and his co-accused had withdrawn the application for bail. The petitioner has now again CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.24786 OF 2012 (O&M) :{ 2 }:
taken courage to file this second bail application by pleading some change in circumstances, where there is hardly any such change noticed or seen.
A perusal of the petition revealed that before making the present approach, the petitioner had filed a petition before Sessions Judge and has filed this petition after getting his petition for bail before Sessions Judge dismissed as withdrawn on 22.3.2012. It is noticed that after filing the second application before the Sessions Judge, the petitioner withdrew the same on 24.7.2012. It could be noticed from this order that other co-accused of the petitioner had also filed a fresh application for bail before the Sessions Judge. Once the bail petitions were filed before this court and the same were got dismissed as withdrawn by all the accused in this case, it was considered a bit inappropriate on the part of the petitioner and his co- accused to make yet another attempt for getting bail before the Court of Sessions. The Court, therefore, considered it appropriate to summon the case file, which has now been received.
The petitioner otherwise has referred to the evidence recorded in this case and in this regard made reference to a court question, which is reproduced in the petition. I have perused the evidence and find that there is an eye-witness account, which is available on record. There is other link evidence or connecting evidence worth of which is to be appreciated by the trial court while finally deciding the case. This case was transferred by this court for trial from Jalandhar to Gurdaspur as obviously the plea raised was that the fair trial may suffer if the trial continues at Jalandhar. Only in CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.24786 OF 2012 (O&M) :{ 3 }:
order to ensure fair trial that the venue of the trial was shifted to Gurdaspur, so that accused persons are not able to influence the witnesses.
It may not be out of place to notice here that one of the witness has not supported the prosecution case and the prosecution has been permitted to question this witness, which are of the nature of cross-examination. It is duty and responsibility of the Court to ensure that trial in such serious offences is held in fair manner that neither the prosecution nor the persons facing the trial are made to suffer any disadvantage while prosecuting and defending the case respectively. It is equally the responsibility of this court to ensure that trial is held in a fair manner. Where attempt is seen to win over the witnesses by making them turn hostile to the prosecution, then the Court has to remain alert and on the guard, so that any undue influence over the course of trial is checked and nipped in the bud at appropriate stage only. For this purpose, this court has not to wait for trial to end and then intervene.
Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also elaborated this responsibility of the courts and that of this court. If it is found that the fair trial is the casualty, then this court is not to hesitate to effectively interfere and ensure that all the parties get fair trial.
It is important to take note of some very telling observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard as made in the case of R.K.Anand Vs. Delhi High Court, 2009(8) SCC 106, which is the after effect of BMW case. Talking about the role of the High Courts, who are required to exercise supervisory jurisdiction CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.24786 OF 2012 (O&M) :{ 4 }:
over the courts under its jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that time has come to add another dimension to the supervisory jurisdiction and power of the High Court over its subordinate courts for monitoring and protection of criminal trials. As is observed in this case, every trial that fails due to external interference is a tragedy for the victim(s) of a crime. It is also observed that more importantly, every frustrated trial defies and mocks the society based on the rule of law and that every subverted trial leaves a scar on the criminal justice system. As per the Court, repeated scars make the system unrecognisable and it then loses the trust and the confidence of the people. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly not approved the indifferent and passive attitude shown by the High Court in the cases. The Court has noticed that every now and then one would come across reports of investigation deliberately botched up or of the trial being hijacked by some powerful and influential accused, either by buying over or intimidating witnesses or by creating insurmountable impediments for the trial court and not allowing the trial to proceed. The Court perhaps has noticed the concern that unfortunately such reports would seldom. If ever, be taken note of by the collective consciousness of the Court. It is observed that the High Court would continue to carry on its business as if everything under it was proceeding normally and smoothly. Such trials, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, would fail because it was not protected from interferences. Further elaborating, the Hon'ble Court has noted that every failed trial is also, in a manner of speaking, a negative comment on the State's High Court which is entrusted with CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.24786 OF 2012 (O&M) :{ 5 }:
responsibility of superintendence, supervision and control over the lower courts. The Court has then gone on to highlight the role and responsibility of the High Court as under:-
"It is, therefore, high time for the High Courts to assume a more proactive role in such matters. A step in time by the High court can save a criminal case from going astray. An enquiry from the High Court Registry to the quarters concerned and it will not tolerate any nonsense. Even this much would help a great deal in insulating a criminal case from outside interference. In view few cases where more positive intervention is called for, if the matter is at the stage of investigation the High Court may call for status report and progress reports from police headquarter or the Superintendent of Police concerned. That alone would provide sufficient stipulation and pressure for a fair investigation of the case."
The responsibility entrusted on this court to exercise superintendence and supervision over the courts within its jurisdiction obviously cannot be ignored. At the same time, it is also to be seen that any observation made by this court should not lead to any undue influence over the mind of the court, which is holding a trial. Fair trial is for the prosecution and equally for the person who is accused of an offence. No doubt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has desired of the High Courts to assume more proactive roles and to see that steps are taken so that trial does not go astray. Mere taking note of the requirement is enough indication for the trial court to be on guard and CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.24786 OF 2012 (O&M) :{ 6 }:
to see that no outside interference intervene in this trial and if there is such influence over the course of trial to take remedial measures. The observations noted here and made above would be enough stimula for the court to ensure that the parties before it (be a prosecution or defence) do not suffer in any manner and the trial is not subverted in any manner to leave a scar on the criminal justice system or on the society.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only advocated such monitoring on the administrative side but has even observed that if the High Court is not satisfied by the status/progress reports then it may consider it taking up the matter on judicial side. The role of the High court when the case reaches the stage of trial has been referred to be far wider. In this regard it is observed that:-
"It can assign the trial to some judicial officer who has made a reputation for independence and integrity. It may fix the venue of the trial at a proper place where the scope for any external interference may be eliminated or minimised. It can give effective directions for protection of witnesses and victims and their families. It can ensure a speedy conclusion of the trial by directing the trial court to take up the matter on a day-to-day basis."
Advocating monitoring of the cases by the High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"The High Court has got ample powers for all this both on the judicial and administrative sides. Article 227 of the Constitution of India that gives the High court the CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.24786 OF 2012 (O&M) :{ 7 }:
authority of superintendence over the subordinate courts has great dynamism and now is the time to add to it another dimension for monitoring and protection of criminal trials. Similarly, Article 235 of the Constitution that vests the High court with the power of control over subordinate courts should also include a positive element. It should not be confined only to posting, transfer and promotion of the officers of the subordinate judiciary. The power of control should also be exercised to protect them from external inference that may sometimes appear overpowering to them and to support them to discharge their duties fearlessly."
Finding that this Court was not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner, the counsel appearing for him again made a prayer to withdraw the petition, which was declined. This is not a fit case for release of the petitioner on bail in view of the evidence that is available on record. I say nothing more lest it cause any prejudice to any party. The trial court may have to keep in view the onerous responsibility to ensure fair trial and that this court too has equally to ensure the fair trial. This court would not be sitting as silent spectator if it is noticed that the trial is going astray in any manner. For this purpose, I would require the Registry to place this order before the Administrative Judge of District Gurdaspur for any action as deemed appropriate. The trial has to be insulated from outside interference as one of the eye witnesses has turned hostile.
CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.24786 OF 2012 (O&M) :{ 8 }:
This petition, however, is dismissed.
Record of the case be returned to the trial Court.
September 04, 2012 (RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE