Jeevan Kumar vs State of U.T.Chandigarh

K.S. Kumaran, J.

PetitionerJeevan Kumar had approached the Sessions Court, Chandigarh, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for bail in anticipation of arrest, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, had declined the relief. Hence he has approached this Court for the same relief.

The case of the prosecution is as follows :

ComplainantIshar Singh Bedi is a resident of House No. 69, Sector 18A, Chandigarh. He had given an advertisement in the paper to rent out his house. Two ladies who gave their names as Sarabjit and Meenakshi came to take this house on lease and the complainant showed them the house. About 20 days or a month thereafter both of them came inside the house, sat down and were enquiring from him about his house. After ten minutes one Thanedar in uniform, who was a Sikh, accompanied by a clean shaven boy in plain clothes came inside. The thanedar told that the complainant was selling opium and poppy and asked the accompanying boy to search. While carrying out the search, the boy took out a polythene bag from those women and said that a bag had been found which contained poppy husk. The complainant informed the thanedar that the bag did not belong to him and he does not indulge in this trade. The thanedar told him that the offence is punishable with severe sentence. The two women said that the complainant should give some money and that they will get the matter settled. The complainant gave Rs. 20,000/ to the women known as Sarabjit, who in turn gave it to the thanedar. The thanedar told the complainant to give some money to those women also for which the complainant said that he had no money with him. The thanedar said that he must be having a cheque book and filled a cheque for Rs. 10,000/ in his own hand and got it signed from the complainant. After that the thanedar and the two women went away.

Later, on 12.12.1998, Sarabjit Kaur and her sister Meenakshi came. Sarabjit entered the house, whereas Meenakshi remained outside the house. After sometime the complainant told Sarabjit Kaur that he was going out and she said that he was free to go. The complainant locked the house, went away and came after one and half hours. When he came back he found that theft had been committed of articles including cash of Rs. five lakhs, gold tikka etc. On 16.12.1998 Sub InspectorKuldeep Singh came and requested not to inform about this to the officers and said that he would return the money in instalments. He also paid Rs. 2000/.

It is on this basis FIR No. 142 dated 22.12.1998 under Sections 384, 389, 34 IPC and Section 13(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 came to be registered.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier the complainant had submitted a written complaint on 13.12.1998 making reference to an occurrence dated 12.12.1998. He contends that in that written application the complainant had stated that a lady by name Paramjit Kaur alias Surjit Kaur visited him on 12.12.1998, enquired about any vacant accommodation, entered the back door of the room in spite of his denial about the vacant accommodation. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that it was alleged that she left the house locking the frontdoor, but had not noticed that the backdoor was not bolted from inside. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that the complainant had stated therein that when he came back he found that theft had been committed and that he had lost Rs. 5 lakhs and other gold ornaments. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of this application FIR No. 138 dated 15.12.1998 came to be registered. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the earlier version the complainant had not mentioned anything about the thanedar or the presentpetitioner, and the role now attributed to the petitioner is also that he accompanied the Thanedar namely Sub InspectorKuldeep Singh. He also contends that the petitioner did not, even according to the complainant, accept any bribe or commit any extortion. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that both the women were arrested and some ornaments and cash of Rs. 1,42,000/ have been recovered. He also points out that Sub InspectorKuldeep Singh was arrested and was also released on bail but nothing was recovered from him. But, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of bail. The allegation is that at first the two ladies had gone to the house of the complainant, who is an old man of 80/85 years, then the petitioner and the Thanedar also entered the complainant''s home. The thanedar accused complainant of selling opium and poppy husk and asked the petitioner to search, who planted or attempted to plant poppy husk. The thanedar and the ladies threatened him and extorted money from him. Therefore, it is highly dangerous to let such people on bail as otherwise it will be very easy for persons like the petitioner to tamper with the evidence and even threaten the complainant. It may be that the police officer has been released on bail but in my view that cannot be a ground for releasing the present petitioner. It is for those, who are administering the Union Territory, Chandigarh, to have considered and taken necessary steps against the order releasing that police officer on bail.

In these circumstances, this application is dismissed.