BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 216 dated 26.4.1994 registered under Sections 302/201, Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar.

(2.) THE present incident occurred on 25th April, 1994 when the dead body of Ram Dayal who was working as a servant with the petitioner was found lying in the outer lawn of the petitioner's residential house. It is the case of the petitioner that on finding the dead body, he went to Adampur to inform Raghunath, the elder brother of Ram Dayal deceased and on return from that place along with Ranghunath, the dead body was taken to the hospital on 25th April, 1994 and Daily Diary Report was recorded in the hospital at the instance of Raghunath. In this report it was stated that Balbir Singh petitioner had come to Adampur that morning and informed him that Ram Dayal had suddenly died during the night and that it appeared that he had taken some poisonous substance or had been bitten to death by some animal insect. The deadbody was subjected to post mortem on the same day, but the doctor opined that the cause of death was asphyxia and that the injuries including some minor laceration were ante mortem in nature. The petitioner, his son Ashok Kumar and his brother Gurmesh Bishnoi, apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid F.I.R. accordingly moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Hisar, who while granting bail to Gurmesh Bishnoi and Ashok Kumar declined the same to the petitioner. The learned Sessions Judge found that the story put forward by the petitioner to Raghunath with regard to the cause of death stood totally negatived and this effort of the petitioner to sidetrack the investigation gave an indication of his guilty mind. The Sessions Judge also found that in a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Raghunath had stated that he had given the earlier statement (which was recorded in the DDR) on being compelled to do so by petitioner Balbir Singh and that he had been offered money and other incentives to make this statement. It was also held by the learned Sessions Judge that the conduct of the petitioner in not informing the police immediately was an indication of his guilt. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge declining anticipatory bail to him, the present, petition has been filed in this Court.

(3.) AS against this, Mr. H.L. Sibal, learned Advocate General, appearing for the respondent, has urged that the very fact that the dead body was found lying in the outer lawn of the residence of the petitioner made it incumbent on him to tender some explanation. He also urged that the statement attributed to Raghunath which formed the basis of the DDR was an attempt to side track the investigation and this fact was further corroborated by the recovery of a bottle of Endosulfan (which is a poisonous pesticide) which has been placed near the dead body. He had urged that this story stood further falsified by the report of the laboratory which had examined the viscera and had found no trace of any poison. He has in the last cited Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1985 SC 969 to contend that anticipatory bail in a murder case particularly when the investigation is in progress, should not be granted, save in compelling and exceptional circumstances.