Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrik Singh vs Karan Sher Singh on 3 March, 2009
Author: T.P.S.Mann
Bench: T.P.S.Mann
COCP No. 42 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
COCP No.42 of 2008
Date of decision: March 03, 2009
Amrik Singh
.....PETITIONER
Versus
Karan Sher Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station, Tripri,
Patiala and another.
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
PRESENT:Mr G.N.Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr D.S.Brar, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr M.C.Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent No.2.
T.P.S.MANN, J.
The present contempt petition had been filed by the petitioner against Inspector Karan Sher Singh, SHO Police Station, Tripri, Patiala and ASI Darshan Singh for wilfully and intentionally disobeying the order dated 21.12.2007 passed by this Court whereby the petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail, in the event of his arrest in FIR No.436 dated 15.12.2007 registered under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC at Police Station, Tripri and inspite of the same, COCP No. 42 of 2008 -2- the petitioner had been arrested on 3.1.2008.
According to the petitioner, he alongwith others was falsely implicated in the aforementioned FIR. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail, which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Patiala on 18.12.2007. The petitioner then filed Crl. Misc. No. M-45874 of 2007 in this Court for the concession of anticipatory bail. The said petition came up for hearing on 21.12.2007, when notice of motion was issued for 25.3.2008 and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer and join the investigation. In the event of his arrest, the petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail by the Investigating Officer, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. Armed with the said order, the petitioner went to Police Station, Tripri on 2.1.2008 for joining the investigation. He was interrogated by the respondents for two hours. At that time, some persons belonging to the complainant party were also present there, who were pressurizing the respondents to arrest the petitioner, even if he had been granted interim bail by this Court. However, the respondents were fully satisfied with the queries put to the petitioner during the interrogation which lasted for two hours and accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to leave the Police Station. Later-on, under the pressure of the complainant party, the respondents again called the petitioner to the Police Station on 3.1.2008. When the petitioner reached there, he was illegally arrested by the respondents, ignoring the fact that he had been granted ad-interim bail by this Court and the petition for anticipatory bail was pending for 25.3.2008. According to the petitioner, he had been arrested by the respondents on COCP No. 42 of 2008 -3- the ground that he had not been granted interim bail by this Court under Section 307 IPC, which offence was subsequently added in the FIR. In fact, when the application for anticipatory bail had come up for hearing before this Court, at that time the offence under Section 307 IPC had not been added in the FIR, but subsequently with a view to defeating the purpose of anticipatory bail, Section 307 IPC was added in the FIR. As the respondents illegally arrested the petitioner on 3.1.2008 despite the grant of ad-interim bail to him by this Court, they were liable to be punished for committing the contempt of Court.
In their replies both the respondents stated that apart from FIR No.436 dated 15.12.2007, the petitioner stood involved in two other criminal cases registered vide FIR Nos.35 dated 23.8.2006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 175 dated 22.5.2007 under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station, Tripri, Patiala. FIR No.436 dated 15.12.2007 was registered under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC against the petitioner and others on the basis of statement made by Nirlep Singh to ASI Harminder Singh in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, wherein he categorically stated that injuries were inflicted on his person with an intention to kill him. There were 11 injuries on the person of Nirlep Singh, out of which four were result of sharp edged weapon while the rest with blunt weapon. All the injuries were kept under observation. On 15.12.2007 itself respondent No.1 alongwith ASI Harminder Singh went to the spot and thereafter to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and recorded supplementary statement of Nirlep Singh and on the basis of the same, offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC were added in the FIR on 15.12.2007 itself. A show cause COCP No. 42 of 2008 -4- notice dated 16.12.2007 was issued to ASI Harminder Singh for not registering the case under Section 307 IPC. It was further submitted that the petitioner concealed true facts from the Court while applying for the grant of anticipatory bail by mentioning the offences disclosed in the FIR to be only under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC and leaving out the offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC. After the issuance of show cause notice to ASI Harminder Singh, the investigation of the case was handed over to ASI Darshan Singh, who arrested the petitioner and recovered the weapon of offence. As the petitioner had not been granted any concession of interim bail for the offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC, he was arrested in the case. Therefore, both the respondents did not violate the order dated 21.12.2007, as the said order pertained to the offences under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC only and not in respect of the offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC.
It is not in dispute that on the basis of statement made by Nirlep Singh-injured to ASI Harminder Singh, FIR No.436 was registered at Police Station, Tripri on 15.12.2007 under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC. On the same very day, supplementary statement of the injured was recorded and consequently, offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC were also added in the FIR. This fact is borne out from the daily diary register maintained in Police Station, Tripri which has been perused by the Court. It reveals an entry regarding addition of offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC in the FIR, subsequent to the visit of respondent No.1 to the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and recording of the supplementary statement of the injured. Under these circumstances, the petitioner while applying for the grant of anticipatory bail before this COCP No. 42 of 2008 -5- Court ought to have mentioned about the offences as mentioned in the FIR, including offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC and not merely offences under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC. Apparently, the petitioner made the copy of the original FIR as the basis to plead that it stood registered only for offences under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC without realizing the fact that offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC also stood added in the FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC were added in the FIR only after the visit of the petitioner on 2.1.2008 to Police Station for joining the investigation and not on 15.12.2007, as claimed by the respondents. These two offences were added by the respondents with the sole purpose of defeating the order dated 21.12.2007 passed by this Court while granting interim bail to the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner was arrested in the case on 3.1.2008.
As mentioned above, it was recorded in the daily diary register on 15.12.2007 that the offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC were being added/mentioned in the FIR. Moreover, for not registering the case under Section 307 IPC after recording the initial statement of Nirlep Singh-injured on 15.12.2007, a show cause notice No.7496/5A dated 16.12.2007 (Annexure R-1) was issued to ASI Harminder Singh. So much so, the investigation of the case was transferred from ASI Harminder Singh and handed over to ASI Darshan Singh. All this shows that the offence under Section 307 IPC was added in the FIR on 15.12.2007 itself and not on or after 2.1.2008, after the petitioner claimed to have joined the investigation and produced the order dated 21.12.2007 COCP No. 42 of 2008 -6- passed by this Court, whereby he had been granted the concession of interim bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that even if the offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC had been added in the FIR, the petitioner could not have been arrested in the same very FIR, which initially stood registered for offences under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC without taking prior permission of the Court, as the petitioner had been granted interim relief against his arrest for the offences, which were mentioned in the FIR in the first instance.
While applying for the concession of anticipatory bail, the petitioner described the FIR to be one for offences under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC. He did not disclose that the offences under Section 307 and 325 IPC stood added in the FIR. Had he mentioned about the addition of the graver offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC, there was every likelihood of a different order being passed on the application filed by the petitioner before this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anyhow, there is no requirement of law that if once an accused is granted anticipatory bail in an FIR and some graver offences are, thereafter, added in the FIR, the police could not arrest the accused without taking prior permission of the Court. In Jagbir Singh vs State and another, 2001 (2) RCR (Criminal) 289, which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the proposition that an accused could not be arrested without taking prior permission of the Court, after he had been allowed anticipatory bail and new offence added in the FIR, the Delhi High Court was dealing with a situation where person had already been granted pre-arrest bail and after the addition of a COCP No. 42 of 2008 -7- new offence in the FIR, the accused was once again before the Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail. It is not clear from the said judgment as to what were the offences initially mentioned in the FIR, for which the accused had been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and what were the new offences added in the FIR, for which the prosecution was trying to arrest the accused. It is also not clear whether the new offence being added in the FIR was an offence of the same gravity or a graver offence than the one for which the concession of anticipatory bail had been granted earlier. For these reasons, this Court would hesitate to place any reliance on the aforementioned judgement to hold that the petitioner could not have been arrested by the respondents on 3.1.2008 on account of addition of graver offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC in the FIR, which had been initially registered only for not so graver offences like offences, under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to COCP No.1066 of 2007 titled as "Amrik Singh vs Ashwani Kumar and another" decided on 10.1.2008 by this Court to contend that as the respondents refused to release the petitioner on interim bail, they deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order granting pre-arrest bail, despite the said order being brought to their notice. I have perused the said judgment. The facts of that judgment are not identical to the present case. The petitioner therein had already been granted pre-arrest bail by the Court and despite the same, the respondents-police officials refused to release the petitioner therein on ad interim bail, despite the order granting pre-arrest bail having been brought to their notice. On the other hand, as mentioned above, the present petitioner had been granted COCP No. 42 of 2008 -8- interim bail only for the offences under Sections 324, 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC and not for the offences under Sections 307 and 325 IPC. Under these circumstances, the arrest of the petitioner by the respondents on 3.1.2008 did not amount to any wilful or intentional dis-obedience of the order passed by this Court on 21.12.2007 while granting interim bail to the petitioner.
Resultantly, there is no merit in the petition which is, hereby dismissed.
March 03, 2009 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE