2016 (11) TMI 1729 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - Illegal execution of warrant of arrest or not - illegal detention in custody or not - whether petitioner and other police staff poured kerosene from a jerrycan upon the deceased persons or the deceased person has committed suicide? - HELD THAT - It is revealed that statements of the inmates of the family accused the petitioner to have caused death of the deceased persons, whereas the outsiders eye witnesses including one of the accused in other case who was inside the jeep and accompanied police officials gave different version saying self immolation by the deceased persons to avoid arrest. It is also revealed that one of the witnesses stated to have recorded the dying declaration of Sk. Sabir where he has named the present petitioner, but the treating physician stated that the deceased having 95% burn injury has no ability to talk. It appears that the Investigating Officer has maintained both the above statements while opposing bail, but had recorded to the effect that accused persuaded his mission to execute the N.B.W. issued by the court as a result of which the deceased persons committed self immolation which was with the knowledge of persuasion of the accused for which prima facie case under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is made out . When the Investigating Officer has come to conclusion about a case of self-immolation of the deceased persons as per the statements of the eye witnesses, prima facie case is yet to be made out against the present petitioner. Whether self-immolation is within the knowledge of the present petitioner or not can be decided at the time of trial. It is too early to opine on the merit of the case, but as per discussions made above and the opinion of the Investigating Officer, it is the considered opinion of this Court that prima facie case against the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail is yet to be formulated. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed, including the nature of allegation and punishment prescribed for the alleged offence, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the court in seisin over the matter subject to condition imposed - bail application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's detention and the bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Examination of the factual matrix leading to the prosecution case.
3. Evaluation of the evidence and statements provided by the prosecution and defense.
4. Determination of whether a prima facie case under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner.
5. Consideration of the principles for granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Petitioner's Detention and Bail Application:
The petitioner filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in connection with C.T. Case No. 2673 of 2012 arising from Balasore Town P.S. Case No. 430 of 2012 and CID CB P.S. Case No. 68 of 2012, pending in the court of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore. The alleged offense is punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Factual Matrix Leading to the Prosecution Case:
The prosecution case is based on the complaint by the informant, Sk. Goffar, who alleged that on 24/25.11.2012, the petitioner, being the Inspector-in-Charge of Balasore Town Police Station, along with 15 police personnel, entered the informant's house illegally to execute an arrest warrant against Sk. Saddique. The petitioner and other police personnel allegedly poured kerosene on Sk. Saddique and his brother Sk. Sabir, set them on fire, and assaulted them. The victims were taken to the hospital where they succumbed to their injuries. The informant lodged an FIR on 26.11.2012, and the CID Crime Branch took up the investigation.

3. Evaluation of Evidence and Statements:
During the investigation, it was revealed that there was a strained relationship between the petitioner and the deceased due to the petitioner's alleged support for Mini India Company, where Sk. Sabir had invested money. The defense argued that the deceased committed suicide to avoid arrest, while the prosecution and informant claimed the petitioner set them on fire. Statements from various witnesses, including family members, neighbors, and police officials, provided conflicting accounts of the incident.

4. Prima Facie Case Under Section 304 Part-II IPC:
The Investigating Officer concluded that the deceased committed self-immolation due to the petitioner's actions, leading to a prima facie case under Section 304 Part-II IPC. However, the court noted that whether self-immolation was within the petitioner's knowledge could only be determined at trial. The court emphasized the need for impartial scrutiny of the evidence and maintained that a prima facie case against the petitioner for the purpose of granting bail was yet to be formulated.

5. Principles for Granting Bail:
The court referred to the principles laid down in the cases of Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., which emphasize avoiding elaborate documentation of merits in bail applications, considering the nature of accusations, severity of punishment, and the character of supporting evidence. The court also considered the potential for witness tampering and the genuineness of the prosecution.

Conclusion:
Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the nature of the allegations, and the punishment prescribed for the alleged offense, the court granted bail to the petitioner. The petitioner was required to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties and comply with specific conditions, including appearing in court on each date of posting, not threatening or inducing prosecution witnesses, not committing any other offense while on bail, and appearing before the Investigating Officer as required. The BLAPL was disposed of accordingly.