Rattan Singh vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

The petitioner in this case is one of the five accused against whom offence under Sections 364, 336 etc. read with 149 IPC was registered and investigation started. During the course of investigation, the petitioner moved for anticipatory bail, and the matter went upto the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court passed the following order :

"Heard counsel.

We direct that in the event the petitioner is arrested for the commission of the alleged offence either by the police or on orders of the court, he may be released on anticipatory bail for a period of 60 days during which period he will obtain regular bail from the concerned court. It will, however, be permissible to the investigating agency to call him for interrogation.

The Special Leave Petition will stand disposed of accordingly."

Obviously that was in respect of anticipatory bail before the chargesheet was submitted by the Police. Ex.P5 indicates that chargesheet in this case was submitted in the Court on 5.6.1995. Once the chargesheet is submitted the question regarding regular bail naturally crops up.

The petitioner along with other accused filed bail application No. 698 of 1994 in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge while considering the case of the petitioner, observed that the petitioner would be required to be in the custody of police in order to enable the police to effect the recovery of firearm which allegedly had been used by the petitioner. It may be mentioned at thus juncture that the firearm that was allegedly with the petitioner, had been fired, but no injury was caused, as claimed by the counsel for the petitioner. The accused who allegedly caused injury with sharp cutting instrument have been granted bail. Since the bail of the petitioner was rejected, the matter was taken to the High Court and this Court sitting singly, directed the Sessions Judge to consider fresh bail application of the petitioner that would be submitted. Fresh application was submitted. The learned Sessions Judge narrated the earlier events that led to the passing of the order by the Supreme Court in the proceedings for obtaining anticipatory bail; and in the last paragraph by giving reasons in five lines dismissed the application by simply observing that he had already denied the bail and there was no change in the circumstances. It was expected of the Sessions Judge to apply his mind when this Court has directed to reconsider the bail application as per the order dated 7.9.1995 (In Crl. Misc. No. 15187M of 1995). The earlier order passed by the Sessions Judge was dated 23.9.1994, and about a year elapsed thereafter when he was called upon to pass subsequent order on fresh application. He has also lost sight of the fact that the chargesheet by the police was already submitted. Though further investigation by the police is permissible even thereafter, the question remains whether after such a long span since the commission of offence, or bail should be refused to the accused simply on the ground that police would require his custody for recovery of a weapon as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Hardly that can be a ground to refuse bail in such circumstances. The petitioner is granted bail on his executing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepore, and on further condition that he shall not in any manner tamper the prosecution witnesses or create obstruction in the smooth progress of the investigation of the case.