SUMEDH SINGH SAINI versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 812 · Decided: 03-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
SUMEDH SINGH SAINI
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 827 of 2020)
DECEMBER 03, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438 – Anticipatory bail –
Brother of the victim-deceased lodged an FIR against the appellant for
offence alleged to have taken place in 1991 – FIR was lodged for offence
punishable under ss.364, 201, 344, 219 and 120-B IPC and subsequently
the offence punishable under s.302 IPC was added on the statements of
two of the co-accused who were allowed to become approver – Appellant
applied for anticipatory bail for offence under s.302 IPC – Sessions Judge
dismissed the application – High Court also dismissed the bail application
filed before it – In the instant appeal, plea of appellant was that the
present FIR was not maintainable as being second FIR on the same set
of facts and having been registered after delay of 29 years of alleged
incident – It was submitted that earlier attempt to falsely implicate appellant
failed and similar FIR for the very incident in question with similar
allegations was quashed by Supreme Court in the case of *Davinder Pal
Singh Bhullar – It was further submitted that the informant had heavily
relied upon the liberty that was reserved in favour of father of the deceased
to file fresh proceedings – However during his lifetime, father of the
deceased did not initiate any fresh proceedings and the present FIR was
filed after nine years of judgment in case of *Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
and 29 years after the incident that too by the brother of the deceased –
Held: Considering the fact that the impugned FIR was lodged by the
brother of the deceased after a period of almost 29 years from the date
of incident and after a period of 9 years from the date of decision in the
case of *Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and nothing was on record that in
between he had taken any steps to initiate criminal proceedings and/or
lodged an FIR, a case is made out by the appellant for grant of anticipatory
bail – Whether the fresh/present proceedings are permissible in law are
yet to be considered in the pending proceedings for quashing the impugned
FIR – In view of status of the appellant that he retired in 2018 as Director
General of Police, Punjab after 30 years of service and the alleged incident
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 812
812
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
813
was of the year 1991 and even in the present FIR initially there was no
allegation for the offence under s.302 IPC and the allegations were only
for the offences under ss.364, 201, 344, 330, 219 and 120-B of the IPC,
for which there was an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the appellant
and subsequently the offence under s.302 IPC was added on the basis of
the statements of approvers only, the appellant has made out a case for
anticipatory bail.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Informant and the State are relying upon the
observations made by this Court in the case of *Davinder Pal
Singh Bhullar and the liberty reserved in para 117 to the applicant
who earlier filed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (father of
the deceased) to take recourse to fresh proceedings, if permissible
in law. However, the said liberty was as such in favour of the father
of the deceased who in the earlier round of litigation before the
High Court filed the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This
Court reserved the liberty in favour of the father of the deceased
to take recourse to fresh proceedings by specifically observing
that if permissible in law. The father of the deceased died in the
year 2014. Till 2014, the father of the deceased did not initiate
any fresh proceedings. After a period of 9 years from the date of
decision of this Court in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar,
all of a sudden, now the informant – brother of the deceased woke
up and initiated the present criminal proceedings. Whether the
fresh/present proceedings are permissible in law are yet to be
considered by this Court in the pending proceedings for quashing
the impugned FIR. [Para 8][819-F-H; 820-A-B]
2. Looking to the status of the appellant that he has retired
in the year 2018 as Director General of Police, Punjab after 30
years of service and the alleged incident was of the year 1991 and
even in the present FIR initially there was no allegation for the
offence under Section 302 IPC and the allegations were only for
the offences under Sections 364, 201, 344, 33

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.