SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 685

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Sumedh Singh Saini – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2020, S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 4336 of 2020
Decided On : 03-12-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Misha Rohatgi, AOR Mr. Bharat Monga, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sartej Singh Narula, Adv. Ms. Diya Sodhi, Adv. Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv. Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail – Many a time, delay may not be fatal to criminal proceedings. However, it always depends upon facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Anticipatory bail – Murder charge – Impugned FIR has been lodged/filed by brother of deceased after a period of almost 29 years from date of incident – Many a time, delay may not be fatal to criminal proceedings – However, it always depends upon facts and circumstances of each case – However, long delay like 29 years can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail – Appellant has retired in year 2018 as Director General of Police, Punjab after 30 years of service and alleged incident is of year 1991 and even in present FIR initially there was no allegation for offence under Section 302 IPC and allegations were only for offences under Sections 364, 201, 344, 330, 219 and 120B of IPC for which there was an order of anticipatory bail in favour of appellant and subsequently offence under Section 302 IPC has been added on the basis of statements of Approvers only – Appellant has made out a case for anticipatory bail – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court as well as Additional Sessions Court dismissing anticipatory bail applications of appellant seta side and anticipatory bail granted. (Paras 7, 9 and 10)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRMM No. 26304 of 2020, by which the application submitted by the appellant herein for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 06.05.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, lodged with Police Station City Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali has been dismissed, the original petitioner – accused has preferred the present appeal.

Findings of Court:

Many a time, delay may not be fatal to the criminal proceedings. However, it always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, at the same time, a long delay like 29 years as in the present case can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 26304 of 2020, by which the application submitted by the appellant herein for anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 06.05.2020 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, lodged with Police Station City Mataur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali has been dismissed, the original petitioner-accused has preferred the present appeal.

3. That one Palwinder Singh Multani, brother of one Balwant Singh Multani (deceased) has lodged an FIR against the appellant at Police Station City Mataur initially for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 201, 344, 219 and 120B of the IPC, and subsequently the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC has been added.

3.1 It is alleged that in the year 1991 one Balwant Singh Multani-brother of the informant was illegally abducted from his residence at Mohali by a team of officials operating under the instructions of the appellant; that he was severely and inhumanly tortured while in custody, by and at the behest of the appellant. It is further alleged that a false and fabricated FIR No. 112 of 1991 might have been registered at the instance of the appellant to suggest that the victim was brought to the police station Qadian from where the victim was alleged to have escaped.

3.2 That apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 06.05.2020, the appellant filed anticipatory bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali. At this stage, it is required to be noted that when the appellant applied for anticipatory bail, the allegations in the FIR against the appellant were only for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 201, 344, 330, 219 and 120B of the IPC. That by order dated 11.05.2020, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali granted anticipatory bail in favour of the appellant. That thereafter as the appellant was apprehending that the offence under Section 302 IPC may be added, he approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali for anticipatory bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 also. By order dated 10.07.2020, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted protection by way of three days’ advance notice in case of addition of offence under Section 302 IPC. It appears that thereafter three co-accused in FIR No. 77 dated 06.05.2020 wanted to become approver and they submitted the applications before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali for grant of pardon and declaring them as approver under Section 306 Cr.P.C. However, all the three applications came to be dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, vide order dated 7.8.2020. However, thereafter the applications submitted by the other co-accused Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh to grant them pardon and permit them to become approver came to be allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, vide order dated 18.08.2020. That thereafter the statements of Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Mohali, which were against the appellant. On the basis of the statements of the aforesaid two co-accused who subsequently turned approver-Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh, an application was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Duty Magistrate) seeking addition of Section 302 IPC in FIR No. 77 dated 06.05.2020. That by order dated 21.08.2020, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Duty Magistrate) allowed the said application and thus Section 302 IPC came to be added.

3.3 That thereafter the appellant applied for anticipatory bail for the offence under Section 302 IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali by way of Bail Application No. 1527 of 2020. That the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 01.09.2020 dismissed the said applicatio


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top