Probe agency’s role not above board in murder case: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 1

In an embarrassment for the Punjab Police, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the investigating agency’s role was apparently not above board in a murder case. The assertion came after Justice Harkesh Manuja noted lack of satisfactory explanation for non-apprehension of two assailants even after they were declared proclaimed offenders.

2 named in FIR declared POs

• Justice Manuja said two assailants named in FIR for carrying a revolver & inflicting firearm injuries on the victim, had not been apprehended and were declared POs
• Yet, a satisfactory answer had not been provided to the court in this regard; it fortified the complainant’s stand of being under threat while pursuing the trial

Justice Manuja asserted that two assailants, specifically named in the FIR for carrying a revolver and inflicting firearm injuries to the victim, had not yet been apprehended and were declared proclaimed offenders. Yet, a satisfactory answer had not been provided to the court in this regard. It fortified the complainant’s stand of being under threat while pursuing the trial.

The censure came during the hearing of the third petition filed by Gurkirat Singh Virk. He was seeking regular bail in an FIR registered in September 2017 for murder and other offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC and provisions of the Arms Act at the Banur police station. He was facing allegations of “actively participating in the murder of Daljit Singh, alias Pinchi”.

Among other things, his counsel submitted that the overt act had not been attributed to the petitioner. The allegation against him was of being present in a vehicle, which reached the “spot” along with other accomplices. However, there was nothing to connect him with the alleged offence. Complainant’s counsel Charanjit Singh Bakshi, on the other hand, submitted that eyewitnesses had identified the petitioner as driving the vehicle.

Justice Manuja asserted that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of bail after cumulative analysis of the facts and circumstances, the material available on record, allegations levelled in the FIR and the gruesome manner of committing the offence.

The mere fact that the petitioner was behind bars for four years and five months could not be taken as the sole ground to grant him the benefit of regular bail. The custody period, besides the rights of the complainant and the deceased, were also to be balanced and required to be considered.

Justice Manuja added that the petitioner’s argument that the trial primarily got delayed on account of the complainant’s non-appearance was a part of the story. On the contrary, the complainant was compelled to approach the court for a fair investigation as a result of “constant threat perception from the accused”.

“The argument that the deceased himself was involved in eight criminal cases is not sustainable, as the same does not give any right to the petitioner to eliminate him, as at best, he could have been subjected to law. The incident in question which apparently is an offshoot of political rivalry, makes it more serious in nature as it hits the entire democratic set-up,” Justice Manuja observed.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.

#Punjab Police