Explore the nuances of legal proceedings surrounding anticipatory bail and FIR quashing in a recent case that delves deep into procedural errors and jurisdictional challenges. The court’s meticulous legal analysis unravels the complexities of the criminal justice system, shedding light on the importance of due process and adherence to legal norms.
Facts
- Appellant initially applied for anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 364, 201, 344, 330, 219 and 120-B of IPC, which was granted on 11.05.2020.
- Appellant later sought anticipatory bail anticipating addition of offence under Section 302 IPC.
- Additional Sessions Judge granted protection with three days’ advance notice in case Section 302 IPC was added to the charges.
- Allegations include illegal abduction and torture of Balwant Singh Multani by officials under appellant’s instructions.
- Accusation of false FIR registration to suggest victim’s escape.
- Statements of Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh were recorded against the appellant by Judicial Magistrate.
- Appellant filed for anticipatory bail for Section 302 IPC with Additional Sessions Judge and later approached High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
- Co-accused in FIR 77 sought to become approver, but their applications were initially rejected.
- Later, the applications of co-accused Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh to become approver were granted.
- Section 302 IPC was added to FIR 77 on 21.08.2020.
- Appellant filed for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with FIR 77.
- Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application on 01.09.2020.
- The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the appellant.
- The FIR was lodged against the appellant for various offenses including Section 302 IPC.
- The FIR was initially for offenses under Sections 364, 201, 344, 219, and 120-B of the IPC.
Also Read: Transfer of Writ Petitions for Chartered Accountants’ Tax Audit Guidelines
Arguments
- Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Sidharth Luthra, and K.V. Vishwanathan appeared for the appellant-accused, State of Punjab, and original informant respectively.
- Arguments were presented regarding the nature of the FIR, need for custodial interrogation, and the appellant’s willingness to cooperate.
- The State and original informant opposed the grant of anticipatory bail citing the appellant’s influence and potential evidence tampering.
- Allegations of malafide intention, political vendetta, and abuse of process were raised in relation to the FIR.
- The appellant’s counsel argued against the maintainability of the FIR as a second FIR and highlighted procedural lapses in adding charges under Section 302 IPC.
- Previous attempt to implicate the appellant had failed, with a similar FIR being quashed earlier by the Court.
- Issues of jurisdictional error in the FIR registration and deviation from proper legal procedures were also raised during the arguments.
- The appellant-accused is seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Various submissions were made regarding political vendetta, malafide, delay in FIR, and the maintainability of the FIR.
- The quashing petition filed by the appellant-accused is pending before the Court.
- The issue of whether the FIR/criminal proceedings should be quashed is under consideration.
- The FIR was lodged by the deceased’s brother after 29 years from the incident and 9 years from a previous court decision.
- No steps were taken in intervening years to initiate proceedings or lodge an FIR.
- A case for anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is considered by the Court due to the delay in filing the FIR.
- Delay may not always be fatal to criminal proceedings.
- The State and informant rely on previous court observations in the Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar case.
- A reserved liberty was mentioned for the applicant in the Bhullar case to pursue fresh proceedings if legally permissible.
Also Read: Interpretation of Wildlife Protection Act: Schedule I Species Identification
Decision
- The High Court and Additional Sessions Court’s judgments dismissing the anticipatory bail applications of the appellant under Section 302 IPC are quashed and set aside.
- If the appellant, Sumedh Singh Saini, is arrested in connection with FIR No. 77 dated 6.5.2020, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of the like amount.
- The appellant must surrender his passport and cooperate with the investigation.
- The bail order is without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the ongoing proceedings to quash the FIR.
- The appeal is allowed as per the above conditions.
Also Read: Privacy Rights Violation in Affixing Covid-19 Posters
Case Title: SUMEDH SINGH SAINI Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB (2020 INSC 679)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000827-000827 / 2020
