Sarbjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Present : Mr. R.S.Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. S.S.SARON, J. **** This order will dispose of CRM No.M-30388 of 2009 filed by Sarbjit Singh and CRM No.M-30844 of 2009 filed by Daljit Singh @ Khalsa. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respective petitioners by way of separate criminal misc. petitions seek regular bail in the case registered against them i.e. FIR No.150 dated 26.06.2008 for the offences under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 120-B Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 which is registered at Police Station Jagraon, District Ludhiana. The FIR has been registered on the information submitted by Sub Inspector Tehal Singh. It has been alleged by the informant that on 26.06.2008 he along with other police officials on government Tata Sumo vehicle CRM No.M-30388 of 2009 -2- was present at the bridge of the canal at the border of village Dangiaan. Secret information was received there that Amrik Singh, Daljit Singh @ Khalsa, Sarabjit Singh @ Sukh who had a Trax vehicle No.CH-03S-0230 had come from Pakistan after getting terrorist activities training. They had huge quantity of explosive substance in their possession. Their aim was to explode bombs at public places and disturb the public peace besides, cause loss to public property. For the said purpose they were moving explosives from here and there and could carry out a big incident in the near future. They had other supporters and advisors in this country and abroad for this purpose. One Surjit Singh who was residing in Hamburg (Germany) was their main supporter. During the night of

26.06.2008 they were coming towards Jagraon from Moga side via Dopar, Chuharchak, Dangiaan road. If a check post was set up, then huge amount of explosives could be recovered from them. The information was observed to be reliable and the offences under Sections as mentioned above it was observed to be made out against the accused Amrik Singh, Daljit Singh alias Khalsa and Sarabjit Singh. The police officials put up a check post and a memo was sent through Sawaran Singh for registration of FIR. The petitioners and one Amrik Singh son of Balvir Singh were apprehended on 27.06.2008 at about 4.00 am while travelling in a tempo Trax vehicle. From their possession 116 rods of explosive matter and 20 kgs explosive material was recovered. The accused/ petitioner also got recovered other explosive substances from different places and four passports. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the case against the petitioner is completely false inasmuch as two CRM No.M-30388 of 2009 -3- of the petitioners i.e. Amrik Singh and Sarabjit Singh were picked up from their shops. Besides, Manjeet Singh was already in custody and Daljit Singh was the driver of the tempo Trax vehicle. It is further submitted that Ammonium nitrate, which has been recovered is a substance used for manufacturing of fertilizers. Besides, Amrik Singh has been granted the concession of bail by this Court on 23.07.2009. It is also submitted that there are discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Considerable emphasis is laid on the fact that SI Rajinder Kumar (PW-9) whose statement (Annexure P-10) has been taken on record vide order passed in criminal misc. No.25052 of 2010 in the connected criminal misc. No.30844 of 2009 has on his mere observation opined the recovered substances to be explosive substance. In cross-examination he stated that he had tested the material without breaking the seals as there was no need to break the seals. It is submitted that Inspector Rajinder Kumar (PW-9) could not have opined the recovered material to be explosive substance and in any case could not have so opined without breaking the seals of the plastic jars in which the recovered articles had been put. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners be granted the concession of bail. In response, learned State counsel on instructions from SI Ramji of Police Station Jagraon has submitted that prosecution has examined all its witnesses and the case is now fixed for recording the statement of accused on 14.05.2010 and thereafter for defence witnesses. A reference has been made to the FSL report in which it is mentioned that the recovered material was explosive substance which can cause explosion and besides cause CRM No.M-30388 of 2009 -4- danger to human life. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the petitioners are to examine about 12 defence witnesses which would take time. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioners are in custody for the last two years. However, the prosecution has closed its entire evidence. The case is now fixed for defence evidence. As regards the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same are not to be gone into at this stage and it would be more appropriate that the same are considered and gone into by the trial court after the evidence has been completed. The fact that Amrik Singh has been granted the concession of bail is not of much significance as in his case it was contended that Ammonium Nitrate is common substance used for manufacturing fertilizer. In fact, Ammonium Nitrate sticks were recovered, which as per FSL report is an explosive substance. These aspects are not to be determined or gone into at this stage. In the facts and circumstances, the ends of justice would be met if the trial court considers and completes the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible. The defence shall ensure that all its witnesses are present on the dates fixed for which they are summoned. The learned trial court shall make every effort and endeavour to record their statements for the purpose of completing the trial as early as possible and preferably by 15.06.2010. In the circumstances, the present petitions are dismissed. However, nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Besides, the trial CRM No.M-30388 of 2009 -5- court shall make every effort and endeavour and conclude the trial in the case by holding day-to-day trial, as far as possible, subject to the condition that the witnesses to be examined by the defence are present on the dates fixed. The Trial shall be completed, if possible, by 15.06.2010. May 12, 2010 (S.S.SARON) JUDGE