Pal Singh alias Pala alias Lakkad alias Harpal Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

M.L. Singhal, J.—Heard S/Shri J.S. Sengar, learned Counsel for the accused-Applicants, Shri R.N. Tewari, special counsel for C.B.I. and Shri Giridhar Nath, standing counsel, C.B.I.

The murder of one Shri Mahendra Singh, M.L.A. was committed on 13th September, 1992. The only evidence against the two accused-Applicants is that on 18th June, 1996 one A.K. 47 rifle from the possession of the accused-Applicant Pal Singh and one SLR from the possession of the accused-Applicant Jai Pal Gujjar was recovered while they were resting at the house of one Jasbir Singh, who supplies weapons to different persons. The report of the expert shows that these weapons have been used in the commission of the instant crime. The learned Counsel for the accused-Applicant further vehemently argued that the occurrence took place in the year 1992, while the two weapons were recovered in the year 1996 after a gap of four years when the two accused-Applicants were taking rest at the house of one person who supplies weapons to different persons, as is the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence on the record that from the year 1996 these weapons have been in the possession of the accused-Applicants, the weapons might have changed hands. The recovery of weapons is not immediately after the occurrence.

The learned special counsel for the C.B.I. argued that the offence is serious one. The accused-Applicants are creating terrors in the Courts and in such cases, bail should not be granted. The learned Counsel relied upon decisions in Madan Mohan v. State of U.P. 1996 Cri LJ 1441 ; Mazahar Ali v. State 1982 CriLJ 1123 ; Gandaram Taria Vs. The State, ; Anil Kumar and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, ; Bhagaban Bhoi alias Behera Vs. State of Orissa, ; Narasimha Murthy Vs. The State, ; Anand Fondu Solyekar Vs. The State, ; Pushpawati v. State 1996 CriLJ 1532; Gurcharan Singh v. State Delhi Administration XV 1978 ACC 86; Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan XXIV 1987 ACC 425; State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subba Rao XXXI 1994 ACC 88 (SC); Smt. Bimla Devi v. State of Bihar XXXI 1994 ACC 156 (SC) ; Sant Ram vs. State of Haryana and Ors., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 205 , relied on; State of Orissa v. Rajendra Prasad Bharadia 1994 ACC 581 : 1995 JIC 547 (SC); Vikas v. State of Haryana 1998 (1) RCR 810 and State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe 1991 JIC 463 (SC); 1991 ACC 93, relied on.

The recovery is not immediately after the commission of the offence, but after a period of four years. The accused-Applicants Pal Singh alias Pala alias Lakkad alias Harpal Singh and Jai Pal Gujjar, involved in Case Crime No. 371 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 120B, 302, 307, 326, I.P.C. and u/s 27, Arms Act, Police Station Dadri, district Ghaziabad shall be admitted to bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.