Vivek Chand Sharma, M.D.U.Rohtak vs State of Haryana

H.S. Bedi, J.

This is an application for prearrest bail filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the following facts:

The facts taken from the petition are as under:

The petitioner was appointed Vice Chancellor of the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, for a period of three years on 22nd February, 1994 by the State Government headed by Ch. Bhajan Lal. The elections to the Haryana Assembly were held in early May, 1996, and the results were declared on or about 7th May, 1996 and when it became apparent that Ch. Bansi Lal was to be inducted as the new Chief Minister of Haryana, he received an anonymous telephonic message on 9th May, 1996 in which he was told to resign his office immediately or face dire consequences. It appears that a meeting of the Executive Council of the University had been fixed for 13th May, 1996 with the prior consent of the government nominees. On 11th May, 1996, however, that is the date when the new government took office in the State, one Kultej Singh, who was working as a Lecturer in Physical Education in the University, told the petitioner to cancel the meeting of the Council on the plea that he had no right to continue to hold the office of Vice Chancellor. The behaviour of Kultej Singh as also the filthy language used by him was brought to the notice of the District Administration by the petitioner vide his D.O. letter dated 12th May, 1996. The District Administration, however, ignored the matter with the result that no security was provided in the University campus. On 13th May, 1996, a group of persons entered the University campus and attacked some officers of the University and also entered the camp office of the petitioner in his residence while the meeting was going on. This group of persons also disturbed the meeting, entered the meeting room, and smashed the window panes and damaged the coolers and then forced their way into the residence of the petitioner and manhandled the members of the Executive Council and also abused them with the result that the meeting had to be abruptly terminated. This entire incident took place in the presence of a police force under the control of D.S.P. Sh. O.P. Kadyan. Not satisfied with the damage that they had caused to the Vice Chancellor''s residence, the assailants then entered the campus and seriously injured Sh. S.C. Dutt, Assistant Registrar as well as Prof. S.P. Shukla and one Dr. Amar Singh a Hostel Warden was also dragged out and manhandled when he tried to intervene to save Dr. S.P. Shukla. Naveen Sharma, the son of the petitioner, who happened to be returning from his college was also injured. The happenings of May 13, 1996 too, were brought to the notice of the District Administration as well as D.I.G. Rohtak, Range, Rohtak vide petitioner''s memos dated 13th May, 1996, but despite this communication, no steps were taken by the authorities. On 11th June, 1996, when the new Chief Minister of Haryana Ch. Bansi Lal visited Rohtak and in the course of a meeting held at the residence of one Hoshiar Singh, threatened that in case, the petitioner did not surrender his office, he would be put behind the bars. On the same day, the S.H.O. Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak issued a letter of even date directing the petitioner to be present in the police station at 5 P.M. on that date as he was to be interrogated in a case registered in the year 1995 against him under sections 342/148/149 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner apprehending his arrest in that case, applied for anticipatory bail in this Court vide Criminal Misc. No. 10494M of 1996 and interim stay was granted to him. On 11th, June, 1996, the State Counsel appeared before the Court and the Investigating Officer made a statement that the petitioner was not required to be arrested in the case, on which the matter was disposed of with a direction that in case he was to be arrested for commission of a nonbailable warrant case, he would be given seven days clear notice in writing. The case of the petitioner further is that the meeting of the Executive Council of the University was to be held again on 3rd July, 1996 and the petitioner apprehending more violence expressed his apprehension in D.O. letter dated 2nd July, 1996 addressed to the SSP Rohtak with a copy to S.I.G. Rohtak Range, Rohtak and also the District Magistrate and also named the person who had been responsible for the violent incidents that had taken place in the University campus on 13th May, 1996. The SSP was further requested to make adequate security arrangements for the protection of the members of the Executive council and for the University. The District Administration, however, expressed its helplessness in the matter with the result that the meeting which was to be held on 3rd July, 1996 had to be postponed. In the meantime, a police post manned by one ASI and four constables which had been set up at the residence of the petitioner was abruptly withdrawn by the SSP leaving him with one Shish Raj as the solitary gumman, on which the petitioner again lodged a protest vide d.o. letter dated June 20, 1996. The petitioner''s case further is that the government, in the meantime, took various steps to curtail the powers of the Vice Chancellor and of the Executive Council in the matter of appointments and this too led to a litigation in this Court. As the members of the Executive Council were agitated over the attempts of the State Government to amend the Maharshi Dayanand University Act, curtailing the powers of the Executive Council, a meeting was called on 10th August, 1996 to discuss the issue. Before the meeting could, however, start a number of persons including Ranbir Gulia, Manoj Siwach, Kultej Singh armed with (sic), Bhim Singh Dalal, Dharminder Dalal, Deepak Malik, Devinder Coach, Balraj and Sallu and Ravinder Lather, for brevity hereinafter called the assailants, came to the camp office in the residence of the petitioner and gheraoed it. Apprehending danger, the petitioner immediately rang up the SSP Rohtak for taking immediate steps to ensure that the meeting could be held in a peaceful manner, but though a message was left with the officer, no call in reply was received. In the meantime, two Senior Officers of the Haryana Government and the govt. nominees to the Executive Council, Mr. P.K. Kaushik, Financial Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Haryana as well as Dr. S.S. Yadav, DirectorPrincipal, PGI, Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak came to the meeting and were allowed to enter the venue. While the petitioner was sitting with these two officers in his Drawing Room, the assailants forcibly entered the main gate and tried to enter the house of the petitioner. Shish Raj, the gunman of the petitioner, who was standing in the lobby, tried to stop these persons, but without success and on the contrary, he was dragged out in the lobby and given a severe beating. In the meantime, some of the assailants including Kultej Singh entered the Drawing Room and pushed Dr. J.S Yadav as well as Mr. P.R. Kaushik to the floor and when Kultej Singh was about to give a knife blow to the petitioner, his son Naveen Sharma intervened and received an injury on his right arm. The other assailants also gave blows to Naveen Sharma on his face, abdomen, testicles and other parts of the body and shouted that he should be killed. The petitioner and Naveen Sharma, however, managed to escape through the back door of his house. In the meantime, the wife of the petitioner was also dragged out of the house and she was assaulted and filthy abuses were also hurled upon her. The assailants then ransacked the house and valuable articles were broken and looted and extensive damage caused to the Drawing Room, Lobby, Bed Room and Kitchen room. The petitioner, thereafter, managed to reach the house of the Deputy Commissioner and narrated the entire incident to him and after some time, the S.S.P. and D.C. Rohtak came to the University and escorted the petitioner, his son Naveen Sharma and Tarun Kumar Sharma, the Security Officer of the University to the Causalty Department of the Medical College, Rohtak for the purpose of providing them first aid. The matter, however, did not end here. While Naveen Sharma was being medico legally examined by the doctor, same persons led by Devinder Coach entered the room and gave a severe beating to the petitioner, his son and also the Security Officer. This incident took place in the presence of the S.S.P. and the D.C. Rohtak, but they did not intervene. These persons also compelled the petitioner to sign on two blank papers under the threat that if he did not do so, he would be killed. The petitioner''s case further is that one Gulab Singh Khatri, D.S.P. who was also present in the hospital at the time when the assault had been taking place, had, instead of coming to their rescue, instigated the attackers to even more violence. It appears that the staff of the hospital had been paralysed by the incidents that had taken place, the medical examination of the three injured could not be held and ultimately the medical examination of the petitioner and his son took place at Chandigarh under the orders of this Court. F.I.R. bearing No. 339 dated 10th August, 1996 Police Station, Civil Lines, Rohtak was, however, registered against Devender Coach and others for offences punishable under Sections 148/149/323, 341 and 506 of the I.P.C. at the instance of an ASI of the police who had witnessed the incident.

The facts in the present F.I.R. have to be examined in light of the background narrated above . In the F.I.R. which has been recorded at the instance of one Rakesh Dabas the responsibility for what had taken place in the Vice Chancellor''s residence on 10th August, 1996 has been fastened on the petitioner. In nutshell Rakesh Dabas, has stated that he along with his friends Manoj Siwatch, president of the Students Union of M.D.U., Rohtak, Ranbir Gulia, President Research Scholaras Union and Yogesh Dagar, Leader of the Students Union of the University had gone to the residence to the Vice Chancellor in order to present their demands. After a thorough search of their persons, the three Union leaders were taken to the office of the petitioner and during the course of the discussion, the petitioner lost his tamper and abused the leaders and asked his gunman Shish Raj that they should be pushed out and Shish Raj on the direction of the petitioner attempted to do so, but without success. The F.I.R. further states that this infuriated petitioner who then told his gunman that in case the students did not go out, they should be shot dead. The gunman Shish Raj, thereupon positioned himself to fire but before he could do so, the petitioner snatched the weapon from him and fired two shots, the first one not hitting anybody, and the second one, hitting the right leg of the complainant. It is thus admitted in the F.I.R that the complainant and his friends had gone to meet the petitioner and some altercation had taken place. It is on these facts that the present F.I.R has been registered against the petitioner, in which anticipatory bail has been prayed for by him.

Notice was issued in the present petition on 14th August, 1996 and in the meantime, a direction was issued that the petitioner would not be arrested in the F.I.R concerned. I have given the facts set out in the petition so that the matter can be examined in its real perspective. The incidents that took place prior to 10th August, 1996, stand substantially admitted in the manner pleaded by the petitioner. That some incident had taken place on 10th August 1996 in the officecumresidence of the petitioner is also admitted though the details thereof differ. The petitioner''s version of the incidents that took place in the P.G.I. are fully corroborated by the details given in F.I.R. No. 39 dated 10th August, 1996, detailed above. It does appear to me that despite the apprehensions of serious injury and violence that the petitioner had expressed before the District Administration from time to time and in fact, right from 11th May, 1996 onwards, the Administration nevertheless chose to ignore the situation. Even prior to the incidents of 10th August, 1996, a number of incidents had take place which involved not only the petitioner and his family members but other senior functionaries of the University. The petitioner has been involved in the present case for having caused an injury to Rakesh Dabas with the weapon of his gunman, but the F.I.R. is conspicuously silent and no explanation has been offered as to how the injuries had been suffered by the petitioner and his son Naveen, who received five and seven injuries respectively on their persons. It is also not denied that extensive damage was caused to the office and residence of the petitioner and that both the incidents of 10th August, 1996 took place in the presence of senior police and other officers. It is, indeed, surprising that the petitioner was deprived of even the basic security that was required by him and in fact, even the Police Post at his residence was withdrawn on 20th June, 1996, although a series of violent incidents had taken place on 13th May, 1996. It is equally significant, as has been pointed out by Mr. Baldev Singh, that no case has been registered on the complaint of the petitioner though a case F.I.R. No. 339 has been registered against some persons on the report of some police officer only for the incidents that took place in the P.G.I. It is, therefore, clear that the investigator has not cared to inquire into the allegations made by the petitioner, and the case registered against the petitioner reflects a bias against him. It is, indeed, unfortunate that the Vice Chancellor of what is arguably the best University in the State, has been sought to be hauled up as a common criminal. In this view of the matter, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 14th August, 1996 is confirmed. The petitioner is, however, directed to join the investigation and he will present himself along with his counsel should he so desire in the office of the S.P. Panchkula at 11 A.M. on 24th August, 1996. It is also directed that he will not leave the country without the permission of this Court. A copy of this order be given dasti.