Baba Tek Singh vs The State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Baba Tek Singh, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 308 dated 24.9.2011 at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala for an offence punishable under sections 406, 408, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120B of Indian Penal Code. The complaint in this case originated from Gurdwara Parbadhak Committee, Teja Singh Samundri Hall, Sri Amritsar and it is against the petitioner as also accused Avtar Singh Makkar, suspended Manager of Gurdwara Baba Gandha Singh Ji, Barnala and Major Singh, driver-cum-incharge of agriculture of the Gurdwara. The allegations in the FIR are that Gurdwara Baba Gandha Singh Ji, Barnala is a scheduled Gurdwara under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 and as per section 25 of the said Act, Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) is the managing committee of this Gurdwara. In a meeting of SGPC, the accused persons failed to come present. Some shopkeepers, however, came present and made statements regarding irregularities and embezzlements of funds of Gurdwara Sahib by and at the behest of the petitioner and Avtar Singh. The first point that came to the notice of the Committee was that plot No. 56 was rented out by Gurdwara Sahib to Jarnail Singh at an yearly rent of Rs. 1.00 lakh. Avtar Singh, at the behest of the petitioner and without the approval of the Committee, got constructed a building of the bank on the land of Gurdwara Sahib and caused pecuniary loss to the Gurdwara. The said property was let out to State Bank of India at a monthly rent of Rs. 50,000/-. State Bank of India constructed the building and started functioning there from 30.6.2009. The income generated from this land was mis-appropriated by Jarnail Singh and Avtar Singh in connivance with the petitioner. A plot measuring 100 x 135 sq. yards was given on an yearly rent of Rs. 93,000/-to Jaswant Singh. It was sublet to Jasmail Singh. Avtar Singh in connivance with Jasmail Singh raised construction over this plot and they are earning Rs. 2,76,000/- per annum, whereas a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- alone is deposited with Gurdwara Sahib. Avtar Singh in order to extend benefit to a colonizer gave a passage measuring 25 x 107 feet from the land of the Gurdwara Sahib against payment of Rs. 6.00 lakhs but earned crores of rupees from the colonizer. Avtar Singh had also sold a submersible motor of 10 horsepower and pipes of the agriculture farm of the Gurdwara Sahib to some private persons. He also received salary of Gurmukh Singh alias Gurnam Singh claiming him to be an employee of the Gurdwara Sahib who was in jail at the relevant time. He also received salary in a sum of Rs. 1,88,467/- in the name of his relative claiming him to be employed with Gurdwara Sahib, Nabha Gate, Patiala, which was associated with Gurdwara Baba Gandha Singh Ji. Other properties of the Gurdwara Sahib had also been dealt with in similar manner in order to generate income out of which most of the amount was taken by Avtar Singh in connivance with the petitioner. In this way, it is claimed that the petitioner with the help of Avtar Singh, had caused loss to the Gurdwara Sahib in a very huge amount.

Mr. M.L. Saggar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that building was constructed on the land of Gurdwara Sahib by Jasmail Singh, a lessee but he has not been made an accused in this case. According to him, the petitioner is made an accused for the acts of others claiming that those acts have been done at the behest of the petitioner. According to him, no investigation so far has been conducted. He has further submitted that the purpose of registering the case was only to arrest him and to obtain his remand. He has submitted that all the cases against him were politically motivated with a view to divest him of his own Gurdwara also. He has further submitted that the petitioner belongs to Nirmala sect, the object of which is to read, teach and preach and he has nothing to do with the alleged acts of Avtar Singh.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the investigation is still going on. According to him, the petitioner has not cooperated in the investigation even when he joined the same. He has submitted that without custodial interrogation of the petitioner and taking the record of the institutions into possession, the case cannot be properly investigated and the very extent of embezzlement can even not be found.

Gurdwara Baba Gandha Singh Ji, Barnala is a scheduled Gurdwara under the Act, which is managed by SGPC. The petitioner became chairman of the Barnala Trust run under the Gurdwara in question. The allegations are that misusing his position with regard to the Gurdwara Sahib and the education trust, the petitioner has committed grave irregularities in dealing with the money of the two institutions with the help of Sher Jang Singh Chahal, Principal of the school and Avtar Singh, the manager of the Gurdwara Sahib. If the petitioner had a duty towards the Gurdwara Sahib, it is to be seen at the time of investigation that if Avtar Singh could embezzle the funds of the Gurdwara without this fact coming to the notice of the petitioner. The allegations that Avtar Singh committed embezzlement at the behest of the petitioner would have to be investigated to reach the truth. The allegations contained in the FIR cannot be outrightly declared as constituting no offence against the petitioner.

Investigation in such cases where the main accused refuses to answer questions of the investigator can only be conducted by taking the accused in custody. What has to be kept in mind is that money of the public institutions is involved in this case and every effort has to be made to safeguard that money. Liberty would have to be there to the investigators to interrogate the petitioner in custody to find out the extent of the embezzlement made by the persons involved in the case as also to find the ways in which it has been done. While admittedly, on the one hand, there is liberty of an individual, on the other hand, there is requirement of law to protect the public money. The facts in this case are such which require the custodial interrogation of the petitioner for which the right to liberty would be subject to certain restrictions. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground to admit the petitioner to pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.