Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in 29-Year-Old Case: Sumedh Singh Saini vs. State of Punjab (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 3 December 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 917

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a person be granted anticipatory bail when there is a 29-year delay in filing a First Information Report (FIR)? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving allegations of abduction and murder against a former Director General of Police. The court considered the impact of such a significant delay and the nature of the evidence presented. This judgment highlights the balance between individual liberty and the need for investigation in serious criminal cases.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, delivered the judgment. Justice M.R. Shah authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The case revolves around an FIR lodged by Palwinder Singh Multani, brother of the deceased, Balwant Singh Multani. The FIR was filed against Sumedh Singh Saini, a former Director General of Police, alleging the abduction and murder of Balwant Singh Multani in 1991. Initially, the FIR included offences under Sections 364 (kidnapping), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 344 (wrongful confinement), 219 (public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Later, Section 302 (murder) of the IPC was added.

It is alleged that Balwant Singh Multani was illegally abducted from his residence in Mohali in 1991 under the instructions of the appellant, Sumedh Singh Saini. He was allegedly tortured while in custody. A false FIR (No. 112 of 1991) was allegedly registered to suggest that the victim escaped from police custody.

Sumedh Singh Saini, apprehending his arrest, applied for anticipatory bail. Initially, the Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali, granted him anticipatory bail for the offences under Sections 364, 201, 344, 330, 219, and 120-B of the IPC. However, after the addition of Section 302 of the IPC, Saini’s application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by both the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court.

The addition of Section 302 of the IPC was based on the statements of two co-accused, Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh, who were granted pardon and became approvers under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, Sumedh Singh Saini, initially obtained anticipatory bail from the Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali for offences under Sections 364, 201, 344, 330, 219 and 120-B of the IPC. However, after the statements of Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh were recorded as approvers, Section 302 of the IPC was added to the FIR. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed Saini’s application for anticipatory bail for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana also dismissed his application for anticipatory bail, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Sections 364, 201, 344, 330, 219, and 120-B of the IPC: These sections pertain to kidnapping, causing disappearance of evidence, wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, and criminal conspiracy, respectively.
• Section 306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the procedure for granting pardon to an accomplice to become an approver.
• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section provides for the grant of anticipatory bail.
• Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): These sections deal with the ordinary place of inquiry and trial.

The court also considered the interplay of these provisions within the broader framework of criminal law and the principles of natural justice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Sumedh Singh Saini):

• The FIR was filed with a malafide intention to harass the appellant, influenced by the current political party in power in the State.
• The FIR is not maintainable as it is a second FIR on the same set of facts, registered after a delay of 29 years.
• An earlier attempt to implicate the appellant failed, and a similar FIR was quashed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770.
• The liberty reserved in favor of the father of Balwant Singh Multani to file fresh proceedings was not acted upon during his lifetime, and the present FIR was filed by the brother after 9 years of the judgment in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar case and 29 years after the incident.
• The FIR suffers from a jurisdictional error as it was registered in Mohali, while the events occurred within the jurisdiction of P.S. Chandigarh.
• The procedure for adding the charge under Section 302 of the IPC was not followed as per the decisions of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 (9) SCALE 120 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.
• The appellant is ready to cooperate with the investigation without prejudice to his rights in the pending proceedings for quashing the FIR.
• The appellant is a highly decorated officer with a distinguished service record.

Respondent’s Arguments (State of Punjab and Original Informant):

• The statements of Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh, recorded during the investigation, make out a case against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
• The offence under Section 302 of the IPC was added after obtaining permission from the learned Magistrate.
• Mere delay and/or political vendetta cannot be grounds to quash criminal proceedings, especially when the allegations are serious.
• The present FIR is not a second FIR, as it was filed by the brother of the deceased, considering the liberty reserved by the Supreme Court in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra).
• The appellant is an influential person and may tamper with the evidence.
• Custodial interrogation of the appellant is required.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court referred to State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770* and considered the liberty reserved in the judgment. However, it noted that the liberty was reserved for the father of the deceased, who did not initiate any fresh proceedings during his lifetime. The Court also noted the delay of 9 years after the judgment in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar case to initiate the present proceedings.
• The Court referred to Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 (9) SCALE 120 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1, but did not elaborate on the procedural aspects of adding charges.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Delay in Filing the FIR: The 29-year delay in lodging the FIR was a significant factor that weighed in the court’s decision. The court noted that such a long delay could be a valid consideration for granting anticipatory bail.
• Status of the Appellant: The appellant’s status as a retired Director General of Police with 30 years of service was also considered.
• Nature of Evidence: The fact that the addition of Section 302 of the IPC was based solely on the statements of the approvers was a critical point in the court’s reasoning.
• Liberty Reserved in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar Case: The court observed that the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings was reserved for the father of the deceased, who did not act on it during his lifetime. The present FIR was filed by the brother of the deceased after a significant delay.

The Court emphasized that while delay may not always be fatal to criminal proceedings, a long delay like 29 years could be a valid consideration for granting anticipatory bail.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Ratio: Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was that the combination of a significant delay, the appellant’s background, and the nature of the evidence presented a case for granting anticipatory bail.

The court stated, “However, at the same time, a long delay like 29 years as in the present case can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.”

The court also noted, “Looking to the status of the appellant and it is reported that he has retired in the year 2018 as Director General of Police, Punjab after 30 years of service and the alleged incident is of the year 1991…”

Further, the court observed, “…and subsequently the offence under Section 302 IPC has been added on the basis of the statements of Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh – approvers only, we are of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for anticipatory bail.”

Key Takeaways

• A significant delay in filing an FIR can be a valid consideration for granting anticipatory bail.
• The status of the accused and the nature of the evidence are important factors in deciding anticipatory bail applications.
• The court emphasized that while delay may not always be fatal to criminal proceedings, a long delay like 29 years could be a valid consideration for granting anticipatory bail.
• The court noted that the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings was reserved for the father of the deceased, who did not act on it during his lifetime. The present FIR was filed by the brother of the deceased after a significant delay.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant, Sumedh Singh Saini, 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, surrendering his passport, and cooperating with the investigation. This is without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the pending proceedings to quash the FIR.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a significant delay in filing an FIR, particularly when combined with the status of the accused and the nature of the evidence, can be a valid ground for granting anticipatory bail. This case underscores the importance of balancing individual liberty with the need for investigation, and it clarifies that a long delay can be a significant factor in favor of the accused in anticipatory bail matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to Sumedh Singh Saini, considering the 29-year delay in filing the FIR, his status as a retired Director General of Police, and the fact that the addition of Section 302 of the IPC was based solely on the statements of approvers. The court emphasized that such a long delay can be a valid consideration for granting anticipatory bail, while also directing the appellant to cooperate with the investigation.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: Anticipatory Bail, Section 438 CrPC, Delay in FIR, Approver Testimony, Section 302 IPC, Section 364 IPC, Section 201 IPC, Section 344 IPC, Section 219 IPC, Section 120B IPC, Section 306 CrPC

Parent Category: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Child Categories: Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 306, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Parent Category: Indian Penal Code, 1860

Child Categories: Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 364, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 344, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 219, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What is anticipatory bail?

A: Anticipatory bail is a direction to release a person on bail, issued by a court, in anticipation of an arrest for a non-bailable offence. It allows a person to seek bail before they are actually arrested.

Q: What was the main issue in the Sumedh Singh Saini case?

A: The main issue was whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Sumedh Singh Saini, a former Director General of Police, considering the 29-year delay in filing the FIR, his status, and the fact that the murder charge was based on the statements of approvers.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court grant anticipatory bail in this case?

A: The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail primarily due to the significant 29-year delay in filing the FIR, the appellant’s status as a retired DGP, and the fact that the murder charge was based solely on the statements of approvers. The court also considered the liberty reserved for the father of the deceased in an earlier case, which was not acted upon during his lifetime.

Q: What is the significance of the delay in filing the FIR?

A: The Supreme Court considered the 29-year delay as a valid reason for granting anticipatory bail. While delay is not always fatal to criminal proceedings, a long delay can raise questions about the credibility of the allegations and can be a factor in favor of the accused.

Q: What are approvers in a criminal case?

A: Approvers are co-accused who are granted a pardon by the court in exchange for their testimony against other accused persons. Their statements are considered crucial evidence in a case.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future cases?

A: This judgment highlights that a long delay in filing an FIR can be a significant factor in favor of the accused in anticipatory bail matters. It also emphasizes that the status of the accused and the nature of the evidence presented are important considerations for the court. This case underscores the importance of balancing individual liberty with the need for investigation.