Surrinder Kumar and ors. vs State of Haryana

G.R. Majithia, J.

This is an application for prearrest bail in FIR No. 165 dated 3,9.1988 under Sections 302, 304A of the Indian Penal Code Police Station City Hansi, district Hissar.

The facts are that the FIR was initially registered under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The name of the petitioners did not figure in the FIR. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the Inspector, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintadent of Police, Hisar and they exonerated all the petitioners except petitioner No. 1. The father of petitioner No. 1 is an ExM.L.A. from Hansi and belongs to Congress (1) party. On July 30, 1989, Shri Bhajan Lal addressed a rally at Hisar and father of petitioner No. 1 Shri A.C. Makar, also participated in the rally and highlighted the various incidents in which the police had misbehaved with the citizens. He also criticized the Chief Minister, Haryana. On July 31, 11989, the brother of the deceased was instigated and he filed an affidavit alleging foul play in the death of his brother and he introduced the name of petitioner No. 1. The police immediately altered the offences from Section 304A to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners moved for anticipatory bail to the Sessions Judge, Hisar on August 3, 1989. Notice was issued to the State in the application and the arrest of the petitioners was stayed. On August 4, 1989 and August 6, 1989 extra judicial confession was fabricated in order to create evidence against the petitioners. The only evidence against the petitioners is in the form of affidavit which was introduced on July 31, 1989 and the extra judicial confession purported to have been made on August 4, 1989 and August 6, 1989. Apart from this, there is no other evidence to implicate the petitioners.

Normally, this Court does not show any indulgence where attribution is made that the petitioners are involved in a murder case but the sequence of events stated above leave no doubt in my mind that the offence has been altered to under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for some extraneous reasons. Political vendetta cannot be ruled out.

In the circumstances of the case it is just that the petitioners are allowed the concession of prearrested bail. The order dated August 28, 1989 is made absolute. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice that after the application for prearrest bail was entertained by this Court and the interim bail was granted to the petitioners, they went to Police Station City Hansi and offered to join the investigation as directed by this Court but the police did not choose to interrogate them despite the fact that they had made themselves available.