IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009
Date of decision: 25th March, 2009
Amrik Singh @ Rana Sardar
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Mr. Shiv Raj Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Khatkar, Assistant Advocate General Haryana
for the State.
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
By this common order, two petitions bearing Criminal Misc.
No. M-3994 of 2009 preferred by Amrik Singh @ Rana Sardar and
Criminal Misc. No. M-4550 of 2009 preferred by Sukhbir @ Sahil @ Sai,
shall be decided together.
Both petitioners have been named as accused in case FIR
No. 431 dated 27.09.2008 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak
under Sections 304, 34 IPC.
One Rahul son of Dhaneshwar had died. Initially case FIR
No. 429 dated 26.09.2008 was registered at Police Station Civil Lines
Rohtak. This FIR was lodged at the instance of one Lakshman son of Jai
Bahadur He stated that he is a resident of Patel Nagar, Rohtak. He had
taken one room on rent, where he had kept his luggage. When he came
back from doing his work, he found that lock of his room was broken and
Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009 2
one boy had entered his room. He raised noise ‘thief thief’, then the thief
attempted to run away and fell from the wall and suffered injuries.
Thereafter, mob empowered him and the mob had given beating. Thief
had disclosed his name as Rahul son of Dhaneshwar. The thief Rahul was
handed over to the police. Statedly, Rahul died in the Police Station.
Thereafter, case FIR No. 431 dated 27.09.2008 was
registered at Police Station Civil Lines Rohtak under Sections 304, 34 IPC
at the instance of Puran Sehgal. A perusal of this FIR reveal that similar
allegations have been repeated, except that Rahul fell from the wall. In
nutshell, FIR contained the averment that Rahul was given injuries by the
mob. Since Rahul had died in the Police Station, magisterial inquiry was
conducted. Inquiry report has been annexed as Annexure P-2 with
Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009. Inquiry report has also noticed the fact
that Rahul was not properly medically examined by Dr.Rita Goyal and she
took the case in a very casual manner. Magistrate relied upon the
statement of the doctors to hold that injuries suffered by Rahul were prior
to 3.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence. Concluding portion of the report
read as under:
“Perusal of the statement as mentioned above shows
that the death of Rahul in lock up, Police Station Civil Line is
not natural, but due to severe injuries given by some boys as
named indicating above with slaps, fists, kicks and iron rod
before producing him before the Police.
Original record is enclosed herewith for your kind
perusal and necessary action please.”
Mr. Shiv Raj Malik appearing for petitioner Amrik Singh @
Rana Sardar has stated that in fact Rahul had died in police custody,
therefore, it cannot be ruled out that he was tortured by the police and he
received injures at the Police Station. It has been urged that both
Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009 3petitioners have been falsely implicated to absolve the police officials of
the offence. Mr. Malik has further stated that petitioner Amrik Singh @
Rana Sardar is said to have given fist blows, therefore, no recovery is to
be effected from him. It has further been submitted by Mr. Malik that there
is no evidence with the prosecution to hold that the injuries given by the
petitioner were fatal.
Mr. Amit Khatkar appearing for State has submitted that no
fault can be found with the magisterial inquiry, as it is an independent
inquiry and during the inquiry it has surfaced that Rahul had died due to
injuries given by the mob. It has further been stated that disclosure
statement of Sehdev was recorded and in pursuance of the same, iron rod
was recovered. In the disclosure statement, it has been stated that
Sukhbir has given injury with iron rod, whereas Amrik Singh has caused
slaps and fist blows. It has further been submitted that another accused
Abhishek has also suffered a disclosure statement and in pursuance of
the same, no recovery has been effected. In the disclosure statements
suffered by both Amrik Singh and Sukhbir, name of the petitioners surface.
It has further been submitted that the third co-accused Manjit, who has
been declared Juvenile and granted bail, has suffered extrajudicial
confession to Jaipal. In his extrajudicial confession, he has named both
the petitioners.
Mr. N.K. Sanghi appearing for the petitioner Sukhbir @ Sahil
@ Sai has submitted that in disclosure statement, name recorded of the
petitioner is not one, by which name, petitioner Sukhbir is known.
Petitioner is a student and his custodial interrogation is not necessary.
To controvert argument of State Counsel, Mr. Malik has
stated that extrajudicial confession made by co-accused is not admissible
Criminal Misc. No. M-3994 of 2009 4
in evidence and disclosure statement is also admissible only qua the
recovery effected and rest of the disclosure statement is inadmissible.
Mr. Amit Khatkar, AAG Haryana has stated that arrest of the
petitioners is required and iron rod is to be recovered from Sukhbir.
However, he has stated that since Amrik Singh has given fist blows, his
custody is not required, but no bail be granted to him because of the
allegations levelled against him.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions made by counsel for the parties. Admissibility of the evidence
gathered till today will be examined during the trial. At this time,
investigation is at initial stage. Investigating Agency has to gather
evidence. Therefore, custodial interrogation of both the petitioners may be
necessary as this Court cannot thwart the investigation by granting pre-
arrest bail. However, petitioners will be entitled to approach the concerned
Court for regular bail, after the period of their police remand is over.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.
[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
March 25, 2009
rps