INDER SEN ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS is a bail application under s. 439 Cr. P. C. in FIR No. 128, Police Station, Raisingh Nagar, Distt. Ganganagar, against the order dated October 31, 1987 passed by the Judge, Designated Court of Rajasthan, whereby the application of the petitioner for releasing him on bail was rejected.
(2.) THE petitioner is charged to have committed offence under sec. 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as TADA (P) Act ). THE above mentioned FIR was lodged on June 21, 1987 against the petitioner and 4 others, in which it was stated that from reliable sources it has been learnt that Gurjant Singh S/o Gurdev Singh petitioner, resident of 66 RB who is wanted in case No. 53/86 under sections 302/307/224 IPC, 27 Arms Act keeps meeting his wife in 66 RB surreptitiously. He also visits his inlaws in 41c. With a view to verify these facts, one Mukhbir was deputed who came and informed that the above mentioned Gurjant Singh used to come once or twice in a month, but some time he has been coming to the village very often on scooter or motor-cycle with Pappu @ Karaj Singh S/o Gajjan Singh resident of 21c. He Comes to village 41c or 66 RB where his wife and children stay. He stays there at night and goes away early in the morning. THE Mukhbir also informed that the above mentioned terrorist Gurjant Singh may came today also and is likely to visit 66 RB where his wife and children are staying. On this information, Santlal A. S. I. who was not known to the people since had been transferred recently, was made to stay in the house of a neighbour with instructions that if Gurjant Singh comes, the information should immediately be passed on. It was further mentioned in the said FIR that today the 20th June, 1987 Gurjant Singh came at 2. 00 A. M. in a Jeep at 66 RB, stayed for short-while in the house and thereafter took away his wife and children in the jeep. It was further stated by the A. S. I. that for continuously 2 days he has been keeping his eyes on 66 RB and has come to know that Gurjant Singh comes several times in village 66 RB to meet his wife, father and children and his father Gurdev Singh also knows about the hiding places of his son Gurjant Singh. It was also stated that Mohan Singh, Karaj Singh @ Pappu and Kuldeep Singh S/o Gajjan Singh are also knowing about hidings of the terrorists. THEse activities of the above mentioned accused falls within the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act. THEreupon, a case was registered under sections 3 and 4 of the TADA Act and investigation was started. In the bail application filed on behalf of all the persons mentioned in the FIR, the trial court allowed the bail application of other persons except the petitioner, whose bail application was rejected. The contention of Shri J. S. Sodhi and Ashok Verma is that all the 4 persons mentioned in the FIR have been falsely implicated by the police. Learned counsel gave out the details of some applications filed in the court of Monsif & Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar in which it was stated that all the 4 persons mentioned in the F. I. R. have been detained illegally since about last 10 days at Police Stations, Raisingh Nagar and Muklawa, whereupon a search warrant was issued by the said court and an advocate was appointed to execute the same and give the report. After this action was taken by the said Magistrate, the above mentioned false FIR has been filed, which is evident from the fact that the search warrant was executed on June 19, '87 and the FIR was filed on 21. 6. 1987. It is further contended by the learned counsel that merely because the petitioner happens to be father of Gurjant Singh who is said to be a terrorist and wanted in some cases, he cannot be arrested and kept behind the bars. It is also contended that the evidence against the petitioner is only that of the police personnel, on which no reliance can be placed. It is further contended hat if there was any truth in the FIR, there was no reason why Gurjant Singh, who according to the prosecution came and visited the house of the petitioner to the knowledge of ASI Santlal, was not apprehended and was allowed to peacefully go away from the place. It is also contended that Mohan Singh, father-in-law of Gurjant Singh who resides in 41c has been released on bail and the case of the petitioner is also similar and therefore, deserves to be given the same treatment. Mr. M. I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State contends that the petitioner is charged to have committed offence under Ss. 3 and 4 of the TADA (P) Act, according to which a person is said to have committed offence even if he abates, advises or knowingly facilitates the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the terrorist. It is further pointed out that as per clause (5) of section 17, no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and secondly, when the application is opposed, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These above mentioned limitations regarding granting of bail are in addition to the limitations under the Criminal Procedure Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner is clearly different from that of Mohan Singh, who has been allowed the liberty of bail. It is pointed out that in the F. I. R. and the statements recorded under sec. 161 Cr. P. C. it has clearly come that Gurjant Singh went to the residence of the petitioner, stayed there for some time and thereafter took his wife and children and went away in a jeep. Such allegations did not exist regarding Mohan Singh. It is also pointed out that not only the police personnels have given the statements in support of the facts mentioned in the F. I. R. , but two independent witnesses Bhagwan Ram and Balwant Ram, residents of the same village and neighbours have also supported the version. This is inspite of the fact that in these cases concerning terrorists, it is extremely difficult to get independent witnesses for the obvious reasons. I have gone through the order of the trial court as also the case diary and the statement recorded under sec. 161 Cr. P. C. Apart from the police personnels, two independent witnesses as mentioned above have also supported the version of the prosecution. It is clear from the evidence on the police diary that Gurjant Singh, who is a proclaimed offender and is involved in several cases and has ran away from police custody, come regularly to the house of the petitioner to meet him, his wife and children. This has been taking place since quite some time. It is not that the petitioner has been involved merely because he happens to be the father of Gurjant Singh, but there is evidence on record to show that Gurjant Singh has been visiting him off and on and thus he is providing shelter to him.
(3.) RELIANCE was placed on the case of Balbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana (1 ). In this case the Apex Court set-aside the conviction as it found that virtually no investigation had been made to find out the antecedents of the accused whether he was a member of any political party and also regarding certain other aspects of the matter. This authority is not applicable to the facts of the present case. At this stage when the matter under consideration is whether to release the petitioner on bail, that court has to see whether there is any foundation for the accusation made against the petitioner. If the material on record collected during investigation shows that there are reasonable grounds for prima facie believing the accusation made against the petitioner, the matter will be considered by the court in that light. The petitioner is not required at this stage in fact to prove his complete ignorance in the allegations made against him but his assertions have to be weighed against the evidence on record to evaluate the same. I have carefully gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr. P. C. and above material on record and I am not persuaded by the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no reasonable grounds for believing prima facie that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit the same offence while on bail. I do not find that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Mohan Singh, who has already been granted liberty of bail by the trial court. In the result, the bail application of the petitioner is rejected. None of the observations made above shall cause prejudice to the case of the either party on merits. . ;