Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inder Sain vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 2 September, 2011
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc.No.M-557 of 2011
Dated of decision: 02.09.2011
Inder Sain .....Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Sector-30-A, Chandigarh .....Respondent
Present: Mr. S. K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sumeet Goel, Standing Counsel for CBI.
Mr. G. S. Sandhu, AAG, Haryana.
***
S.S. SARON, J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Petitioner-Inder Sain has filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition for grant of regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short).
The complainant-Joginder Singh who is the father of the deceased Ranjit Singh initially lodged FIR No.312 dated 10.07.2002 at Police Station Sadar, Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra with regard to the murder of his son Ranjit Singh. In the said FIR, Joginder Singh (complainant) suspected Ram Kumar, Sarpanch and Raj Singh residents of village Khanpur Kohlian to have committed the murder of Ranjit Singh. Thereafter Joginder Singh (complainant) made a supplementary statement on 28.04.2008 in which it is stated that in May, 2002 an anonymous letter written by a girl was published in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' which led to tension between Tarksheel Society and Dhan Dhan Satgur Tera Hi Asra Crl. Misc.No.M-557 of 2011 -2- workers. After this news item was published, it was alleged by Joginder Singh (Complainant) that Ranjit Singh (deceased) lost faith in the Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. Ranjit Singh (deceased) then withdrew both his daughters from the Dera School. He himself started visiting the Dera infrequently. The detailed facts and cirucmstances of the present case have been considered by this Court while considering the bail application of Avtar Singh, co-accused of the petitioner who was granted the concession of bail vide order dated 01.03.2011 (Annexure P23) passed in the case; Avtar Singh versus Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh (Criminal Miscellaneous No.M- 7206 of 2010). The role attributed to the petitioner-Inder Sain is somewhat similar to that of said Avtar Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the role attributed to the present petitioner is identical to that of Avtar Singh and since Avtar Singh has been granted the concession of bail, the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail. It is submitted that the peitioner is 78 years old and is unable to walk on his own. He has undergone bye pass surgery.
In response, Mr. Sumeet Goel, Standing counsel for CBI has vehemently opposed the application and has submitted that the petitioner is Managing Director of the Dera and he is involved in the conspiracy to murder Ranjit Singh. It is submitted that Khatta Singh who witnessed the conspiracy has clearly stated in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.-for short) and also in his statement (Annexure P-17) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy. Besides, it is stated that Joginder Singh (complainant) who has been examined as PW-9 in his deposition in Court has also stated regarding the involvement of the petitioner. He (Joginder Singh-complainant) has deposed that when Ranjit Singh returned from the Crl. Misc.No.M-557 of 2011 -3- Dera in the night, he told him (Joginder Singh PW-9) that at the Dera premises, Ranjit Singh was being pressurized by Inder Sain (petitioner), Avtar Singh, Jasbir Singh, Darshan Singh and Krishan Lal to appologize before Baba Gurmeet Singh; besides, reference has been made to the petition (Annexure P-9) filed by the petitioner in his capacity as Chief Manager of the Dera, on the strength of which it is submitted that the petitioner is an important functionary of the Dera Sacha Sauda and was involved in the conspiracy to murder of Ranjit Singh who had gone against the Dera. It is also submitted that merely because the petitioner is stated to be 78 years old is no ground for releasing him on bail. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on judgments of this Court in the cases of Mail Kaur versus State of Haryana, 1992(2) AICLR 83 and Mulakh Raj versus State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 43; besides, of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Smt. Lahari Bai versus State of Rajasthan , 1996 Criminal Law 1400. It is also submitted that the petitioner had surrendered on 06.11.2006 and before that he was absconding.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case of the petitioner is covered by order dated 01.03.2011 (Annexure P-23) passed by this Court in Avtar Singh versus Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh (Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-7206 of 2010). The allegations against petitioner-Inder Sain are somewhat similar to that of Avtar Singh. It may also be noticed that the prosecution has cited 75 witnesses in the case and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-CBI has submitted that the prosecution has examined 27 witnesses till date and seven have been given up. Therefore, about 41 witnesses remain. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the CBI-respondent that the prosecution is likely to examine only 10-15 more Crl. Misc.No.M-557 of 2011 -4- witnesses and the rest are likely to be given up. It may also be noticed that Baba Gurmeet Singh who is the main accused in the case was granted anticipatory bail by this Court and subsequently was granted regular bail by the learned trial Court. Against the order granting pre-arrest bail to Baba Gurmeet Singh SLP (Criminal No.6583 of 2007 titled Aridaman Chhatarpati Versus Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim and another was filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 03.10.2007. Therefore, the main accused in the case has not been in custody for a single day. The petitioner, however, is in custody for the last about five years.
Learned counsel for the State of Haryana has submitted regarding the medical condition of the petitioner. The Medical Officer, Central Jail Hospital, Ambala has on 30.8.2011 opined that Inder Sain (petitioner) is about 78 years old. He suffers from chest pain and hypertension and heart disease. He is also suffering from general weakness due to old age. Some days before he was referred to Government Hospital Ambala City for specialist opinion and treatment. They diagnosed it to be a case of coronary artery disease of heart (CAD). They also diagnosed hypertension and urinary tract infection due to old age. Specialist Government Hospital Ambala City referred him to PGI Chandigarh for cardiologist opinion and treatment. It was diagnosed that blockage in coronary artery of heart was more than recoverable. Blood pressure of the patient normally was 150/100 and pulse rate 80 per minute. Some times the patient complained of severe chest pain with high blood pressure approximately 200/100 then he needs emergency medicine. The Medical Officer, Central Jail, Ambala immediately gave him emergency injection and medicine. The patient also complained sever weakness due to old age. Now patient was under treatment from cardiologist PGI Chandigarh and also taking treatment for Jaw Infection from PGI Crl. Misc.No.M-557 of 2011 -5- Chandigarh.
In the circumstances, it may be noticed that the allegations against the petitioner are similar to that of Avtar Singh who has already been granted the concession of regular bail; besides the petitioner is in custody for the last about five years whereas the main accused Baba Gurmeet Singh has been granted bail. In respect of the statement (Annexure P17) of Khatta Singh recorded under Section 164 CrPC, it may be noticed that though Khatta Singh in his statement under Section 161 CrPC had stated that after Ranjit Singh had died, the accused including petitioner Inder Sain were seen celebrating at Kashish Hotel. However, Khatta Singh in his statement (Annexure P 17) under Section 164 CrPC stated that he only saw Jasbir Singh, Sabdil Singh and Krishan Lal celebrating in front of Kashis Hotel. The effect of the statement (Annexure P17) is to be considered by the learned trial Court after evidence has been concluded and it would be inappropriate to go into the same at this stage. As regards the deposition (Annexure P18) of Joginder Singh, complainant as PW 9 in Court regarding the involvement of the petitioner, he has deposed that when Ranjit Singh (deceased) returned from the Dera in the night, he told him (Joginder Singh- PW9) that at the Dera premises Ranjit Singh was being pressurized by Inder Sain (petitioner), Avtar Singh, Jasbir, Darshan Singh and Krishan Lal to apologize before Baba Gurmeet Singh. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed that Joginder Singh (PW 9) on 18.12.2010 deposed before Special Judge CBI that Ranjit Singh (deceased) had not stated to him (Joginder Singh - PW9) that Inder Sain (petitioner) threatened him. It is further stated that in none of his statements before the local police and in any affidavit submitted in the High Court, he had named Inder Sain (petitioner) as one of the persons in the murder of his son though he has stated that the Dera people has been behind the murder of his son. The effect of the said statement is also to be Crl. Misc.No.M-557 of 2011 -6- considered and gone into by the learned trial Court. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for CBI that Inder Sain is an important functionary in the Dera and had filed a petition (Annexure P9) in this Court in his capacity as Chief Manager of the Dera. It may be noticed that mere filing of a petition in this Court may not per se establish that Inder Sain (petitioner) was involved in the conspiracy to murder Ranjit Singh. The petitioner is stated to be the Chief Manager of the Dera. However, that by itself may not be a circumstance to hold that he was part of the conspiracy to murder Ranjit Singh. These aspects in any case are to be considered by the learned trial Court and it would be inappropriate to go into the same at this stage. Although old age by itself is not a reason for grant of regular bail as has been contended by the learned counsel for respondent CBI, however, in the present case, apart from the fact that the petitioner is old, he is suffering from other diseases as well and has been in custody for the last about five years; besides, his co-accused, Avtar Singh, who is similarly placed, has been granted the concession of bail.
In the circumstances, the petitioner-Inder Sain on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula shall be admitted to bail. One of the sureties to be furnished by petitioner 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 his doing so, the bail that has been granted shall be cancelled.
02.09.2011 (S.S.SARON) A.Kaundal JUDGE