( 1 ) SATYAVIR Singh Rathi is an Assistant Commissioner of Police. He has applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered by the C. B. I. under sections 302, 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

( 2 ) EXORDIALLY speaking, the point for discussion is short but its legal import and human portent are deap meriting examination in some detail. However, before I proceed to do so, a thumb nail sketch of the sequence of events would be necessary to get a hang of the core of the case. And, before that too what needs to be noticed is that the investigation was first conducted by the Delhi Police and then taken over by the C. B. I. I have thought it fit to mention it since the Delhi Police has come up with its own version which the C. B. I. paints as palpably false. I shall be dealing with both the versions in their necessary detail.

( 3 ) FIRST, the version of the Delhi Police.

( 4 ) THE Delhi Police was on the look out for a person by the name of Mohd. Yasin who was wanted in as many as twenty criminal cases of serious nature like robbery, dacoity, murder and attempted murder. On March 31, 1997 a police party headed by Inspector Anil Kumar spotted a bearded person resembling Mohd. Yasin. He was in a Maruti Esteem car and had two more persons as his company. The car was trailed. In the meanwhile the petitioner also alongwith other police officials joined the Inspector. The car was finally intercepted near the red light of Barakhamba crossing in Connaught Place. Soon thereupon, the police party was fired upon by the occupants of the Maruti Esteem causing injuries to two constables and "in self-defence and with a view to immoblise the occupants" the police party too fired "on the Maruti Esteem" resulting in injuries to the occupants of the said car.

( 5 ) AND, what about the version of the C. B. I. ?

( 6 ) THE C. B. I. , on investigation, found that the bearded person was one Jagjit Singh who, alongwith one Tarun Preet Singh, had gone to Patparganj to meet his friend Pradeep Goyal and that from there all the said three persons had first gone to Dena Bank building in Connaught Place in their Maruti Esteem Car. At the Dena Bank building Jagjit Singh had kept sitting alone in the car for about 20 minutes. At about 2. 20 p. m. Pradeep Goyal and Tarun came back from the Bank and then the car, which was being driven by Jagjit Singh, started moving towards the Statesman building. At this stage the petitioner too with police force joined Anil Kumar who, all along, had been trailing the three unfortunate young men. When the Maruti Esteem car reached the traffic signals of Barakhamba Road crossing the traffic lights turned red. This made Jagjit Singh stop the car. And, as soon as the car stopped, it was not only surrounded from all sides by the police personnel led by the petitioner and Inspector Anil Kumar but was also fired at indiscriminately and "without any provocation" and with the common intention was "to kill the occupants". The firing did result in the death of Pradeep Goyal and Jagjit Singh. As for Tarun, he received grievous injuries. The C. B. I. reveals that as many as 34 bullets were fired by the Police party at the occupants of the car and that at no stage had the police party been fired upon from inside the Maruti Esteem. The C. B. I. also found that the claim of the Delhi Police that two of its Constables had sustained gun shot injuries as a result of firing from inside the Maruti Esteem was "false" and further that "in order to justify the firing on the Maruti Esteem car and knowing that an offence had been committed by them and with a view to screen themselves from legal punishments, the police party planted one 7. 65 mm pistol and seven live cartridges and prepared false records. "

( 7 ) HAVING provided above a brief resume of what emerges out from the investigation conducted not only by the Delhi Police but also by the C. B. I. , I think it is time to deal with the arguments advanced.

( 8 ) IT w