2020 INSC 0602
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.827 OF 2020
(Arising from SLP(Criminal) No.4336/2020)
Sumedh Singh Saini …Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 08.09.2020 passed by the High Court
of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in   CRM­M   No.   26304   of
2020, by which the application submitted by the appellant herein
for   anticipatory   bail   in   connection   with   FIR   No.   77   dated
06.05.2020   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   IPC,
lodged   with   Police   Station   City   Mataur,   District   S.A.S.   Nagar,
1

Mohali has been dismissed, the original petitioner – accused has
preferred the present appeal.
3. That   one   Palwinder   Singh   Multani,   brother   of   one   Balwant
Singh Multani (deceased) has lodged an FIR against the appellant
at Police Station City Mataur initially for the offences punishable
under   Sections   364,   201,   344,   219   and   120­B   of   the   IPC,   and
subsequently  the  offence  punishable  under  Section  302  IPC  has
been added.
3.1 It   is   alleged   that   in   the   year   1991   one   Balwant   Singh
Multani   –   brother   of   the   informant   was   illegally   abducted   from
his residence at Mohali by a team of officials operating under the
instructions   of   the   appellant;   that   he   was   severely   and
inhumanly tortured while in custody, by and at the behest of the
appellant.  It is further alleged that a false and fabricated FIR No.
112   of   1991   might   have   been   registered   at   the   instance   of   the
appellant   to   suggest   that   the   victim   was   brought   to   the   police
station   Qadian   from   where   the   victim   was   alleged   to   have
escaped.
3.2 That apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 77
dated 06.05.2020, the appellant filed anticipatory bail application
before   the   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Mohali.     At   this
2

stage, it is required to  be noted  that when the appellant  applied
for   anticipatory   bail,   the   allegations   in   the   FIR   against   the
appellant   were   only   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Sections
364,   201,   344,   330,   219   and   120­B   of   the   IPC.     That   by   order
dated 11.05.2020, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali
granted   anticipatory   bail   in   favour   of   the   appellant.     That
thereafter   as   the   appellant   was   apprehending   that   the   offence
under Section 302 IPC may be added, he approached the learned
Additional   Sessions   Judge,   Mohali   for   anticipatory   bail   for   the
offence   punishable   under   Section   302   also.     By   order   dated
10.07.2020,   the   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge   granted
protection   by   way   of   three   days’   advance   notice   in   case   of
addition   of   offence   under   Section   302   IPC.     It   appears   that
thereafter   three   co­accused   in   FIR   No.   77   dated   06.05.2020
wanted to become approver and they submitted the applications
before   the   learned   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,   Mohali   for   grant   of
pardon   and   declaring   them   as   approver   under   Section   306
Cr.P.C.  However, all the three applications came to be dismissed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, vide order dated
7.8.2020.   However, thereafter the applications submitted by the
other   co­accused   –   Jagir   Singh   and   Kuldip   Singh   to   grant   them
3

pardon and permit them to become approver came to be allowed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, vide order dated
18.08.2020.     That   thereafter   the   statements   of   Jagir   Singh   and
Kuldip   Singh   were   recorded   by   the   learned   Judicial   Magistrate
(First   Class),   Mohali,   which   were   against   the   appellant.     On   the
basis   of   the   statements   of   the   aforesaid   two   co­accused   who
subsequently   turned   approver   –   Jagir   Singh   and   Kuldip   Singh,
an   application   was   submitted   before   the   learned   Judicial
Magistrate,   First   Class   (Duty   Magistrate)   seeking   addition   of
Section 302 IPC in FIR No. 77 dated 06.05.2020.   That by order
dated   21.08.2020,   the   learned   Judicial   Magistrate,   First   Class
(Duty   Magistrate)   allowed   the   said   application   and   thus   section
302 IPC came to be added.  
3.3 That thereafter the appellant applied for anticipatory bail for
the   offence   under   Section   302   IPC   before   the   learned   Additional
Sessions   Judge,   Mohali   by   way   of   bail   application   no.   1527   of
2020.     That   the   learned   Additional   Sessions   Judge   vide   order
dated 01.09.2020 dismissed the said application. That thereafter
the appellant approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
at   Chandigarh   with   an   application   for   grant   of   anticipatory   bail
being   CRM­M   No.   26304   of   2020.     By   the   impugned   judgment
4

and   order,   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   said   anticipatory
bail   application.   Hence,   the   appellant   has   preferred   the   present
appeal.
4. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared
for the appellant – accused, Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior
Advocate   has   appeared   for   the   State   of   Punjab   and   Shri   K.V.
Vishwanathan,   learned   Senior   Advocate   has   appeared   on   behalf
of the original informant.
4.1 Number   of   submissions   have   been   made   by   Shri   Rohatgi,
learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellant   –
accused in support of his prayer to grant anticipatory bail.
It is vehemently submitted that the present FIR is filed with
a malafide intention to harass the appellant and at the instance
of   the   present   party   in   power   in   the   State.     It   is   submitted   that
even   otherwise   the   present   FIR   is   not   maintainable   as   being   a
second FIR on the same set of facts and has been registered after
delay   of   29   years   of   the   alleged   incident.     It   is   submitted   that
earlier   attempt   to   falsely   implicate   the   appellant   failed   and   a
similar  FIR for  the very  incident in question and  with somewhat
similar allegations came to be quashed by this Court in the case
5

of  State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, reported in (2011)
14 SCC 770.
4.2 It   is   further   submitted   that   the   informant   heavily   placed
reliance   upon   the   liberty   reserved   in   favour   of   the   father   of
Balwant Singh Multani to file fresh proceedings.   It is submitted
that   however   during   his   life   time   the   father   of   Balwant   Singh
Multani did not initiate any fresh proceedings and after a period
of   six   years   and   after   the   death   of   the   father   of   Balwant   Singh
Multani,   the   present   FIR   has   been   filed   after   9   years   of   the
judgment of this Court in the case of   Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
(supra)   and   after   29   years   of   the   incident   and   that   too   by   the
brother of Balwant Singh Multani with the political support of the
current   State   Government.     It   is   submitted   that,   as   such,   when
initially   the   present   FIR   was   lodged,   it   was   lodged   on   6.5.2020
only for the offences under Sections 364, 201, 344, 330, 219 and
120­B of the IPC.  It is submitted that thereafter the investigating
agency with a malafide intention pressurised two co­accused and
made   them   approver   and   obtained   the   statements   against   the
appellant   and   on   the   basis   of   the   statements   of   the   two   co­
accused   who   subsequently   turned   as   approver,   the   offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC has been added.
6

4.3 It is further submitted that even the present FIR also suffers
from   a   serious   jurisdictional   error,   inasmuch   as,   the   FIR   is
registered   in   Mohali   on   the   directions   of   the   SSP,   Mohali,
whereas,   in   fact,   all   the   events   even   as   per   the   complainant
occurred   within   the   jurisdiction   of   P.S.   Chandigarh.     It   is
submitted that as per Sections 177 and 178, Cr.P.C. the ordinary
place   of   investigation   and   trial   is   within   whose   local   jurisdiction
the   offence   has   occurred.     It   is   submitted   that   the   present   FIR
No.   77   and   the   proceedings   initiated   pursuant   thereto   are   a
blatant abuse of process, malafide and misuse of policing power.
It is submitted that as such the appellant has already moved an
application for quashing FIR No. 77 dated 6.5.2020, which came
to be dismissed by the High Court against which a special leave
petition is pending before this Court.
4.4 It is further submitted that even otherwise while adding the
charge under Section 302 IPC in FIR No. 77 dated 6.5.2020, the
procedure as required to be followed as per  the decisions of this
Court   in   the   cases   of   Pradeep   Ram   v.   State   of   Jharkhand,
reported   in   2019   (9)   SCALE   120   and   Sushila   Aggarwal   v.   State
(NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 , has not been followed.
It   is   submitted   that   even   the   procedure   adopted   by   the   learned
7

Magistrate,   who   allowed   the   prosecution   to   add   the   offence
punishable under  Section  302  IPC  is unknown  to  the  procedure
required to be followed under the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
4.5 It   is   further   submitted   by   Shri   Rohatgi,   learned   Senior
Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant
is ready and willing to co­operate with the investigation, however,
without   prejudice   to   his   rights   and   contentions   in   the   pending
proceedings   before   this   Court   for   quashing   the   FIR.     It   is
submitted   that   the   appellant   is   highly   decorated   officer   with   a
distinguished   service   record.     Shri   Rohatgi   has   also   made
submissions   on   malafide,   political   vendetta   and   the   harassment
by the police.
4.6 Making   the   above   submissions   and   relying   upon   the
aforesaid decisions of this Court, it is prayed to allow the present
application and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.
5. The   present   application   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri
Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the   respondent­State   and   Shri   K.V.   Vishwanathan,   learned
Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   original   informant.
Relying   upon   the   statements   of   Jagir   Singh   and   Kuldip   Singh
which   were   recorded   during   the   course   of   investigation,   it   is
8

vehemently submitted that a case has been made out against the
appellant­accused   for   the   offence   under   Section   302   IPC.     It   is
submitted that the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC has
been   added   after   obtaining   the   permission   from   the   learned
Magistrate.     It   is   submitted   that   considering   the   material
available   on   record,   the   learned   Magistrate   allowed   the
application submitted by the prosecution/investigating agency to
add   the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302   IPC.     It   is
submitted   that   therefore   a   prima   facie   case   is   made   out   against
the appellant.
5.1 Now so far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, it is
submitted   that   as   per   catena   of   decisions   of   this   Court,   mere
delay and/or political vendetta cannot be a ground to quash the
criminal  proceedings, more particularly  when the  allegations are
very  serious and the allegations against the police officers are of
misuse   of   power,   misuse   of   position,   kidnapping   and   thereafter
killing the innocent person.  It is submitted that truth must come
out.     It   is   submitted   that   the   custodial   interrogation   of   the
appellant is required.
5.2 It is further submitted that even the present FIR cannot be
said to be the second FIR as submitted on behalf of the appellant.
9

It   is   submitted   that   the   present   criminal   proceedings/FIR   is   by
the brother of the deceased who lost his brother and considering
the   liberty   reserved   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Davinder   Pal
Singh Bhullar (supra) .
5.3 It is vehemently submitted by Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned
Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   and   Shri   K.V.
Vishwanathan,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   original   informant   that   the   appellant   is   a   very   influential
person   and   may   tamper   with   the   evidence   and   therefore   this   is
not   a   fit   case   to   grant   anticipatory   bail   to   the   appellant   under
Section 438 Cr.P.C.
5.4 Making   the   above   submissions,   it   is   prayed   to   dismiss   the
present   application   by   submitting   that   when   both,   the   learned
trial Court as well as the High Court have refused to exercise the
discretion   in   favour   of   the   appellant   and   have   refused   to   grant
anticipatory bail to the appellant, the same may not be interfered
with by this Court.
6. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the   appellant­accused,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original
informant.
10

At  the  outset, it  is required to be noted that  in the  present
appeal   the   only   question   which   is   required   to   be   considered   is
whether   the   appellant   is   entitled   to   the   anticipatory   bail   under
Section 438 Cr.P.C.?
7. Number   of   submissions   have   been   made   by   the   learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant­accused on political
vendetta,   malafide,   delay   in   lodging   the   FIR,   even   the
maintainability   of   the   impugned   FIR   etc.     However,   taking   into
consideration   that   the   quashing   petition   filed   by   the   appellant­
accused   is   pending   before   this   Court   and   the   issue   whether   the
FIR/criminal proceedings are required to be quashed or not is at
large before this Court, we do not propose to elaborately deal with
all   the   submissions   made   by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the respective parties.
However,   considering   the   fact   that   the   impugned   FIR   has
been lodged/filed by the brother of the deceased after a period of
almost 29 years from the date of incident and after a period of 9
years   from   the   date   of   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra)   and nothing is on record that
in   between   he   had   taken   any   steps   to   initiate   criminal
proceedings and/or  lodged an FIR, we are of the  opinion  that  at
11

least a case is made out by the appellant for grant of anticipatory
bail  under   Section   438,  Cr.P.C.    Many  a  time,  delay  may  not  be
fatal   to   the   criminal   proceedings.     However,   it   always   depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case.   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.  
8. Informant   and   the   State   are   relying   upon   the   observations
made   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Davinder   Pal   Singh   Bhullar
(supra)   and the liberty reserved in para 117 to the applicant who
earlier  filed the  petition  under  Section  482  Cr.P.C.  (father  of  the
deceased) to take recourse to fresh proceedings, if permissible in
law.   However, suffice it to say that the said liberty was as such
in favour of the father of the deceased who in the earlier round of
litigation before the High Court (from which the SLP(Criminal) No.
6503­6509/2011   were   arisen)   filed   the   petitions   under   Section
482   Cr.P.C..   This   Court   reserved   the   liberty   in   favour   of   the
father   of   the   deceased   to   take   recourse   to   fresh   proceedings   by
specifically   observing   that   if   permissible   in   law .     It   is   reported
that the father of the deceased died in the year 2014.   Till 2014,
the father of the deceased did not initiate any fresh proceedings.
After a period of 9 years from the date of decision of this Court in
12

the   case   of   Davinder   Pal   Singh   Bhullar   (supra) ,   all   of   a   sudden,
now   the  informant   –   brother   of  the   deceased  has   woken   up   and
has   initiated   the   present   criminal   proceedings.     Whether   the
fresh/present   proceedings   are   permissible   in   law   are   yet   to   be
considered by this Court in the pending proceedings for quashing
the impugned FIR.
9. 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   and   even   in   the   present   FIR   initially   there   was   no
allegation   for   the   offence   under   Section   302   IPC   and   the
allegations   were   only   for   the   offences   under   Sections   364,   201,
344, 330, 219 and 120­B of the IPC, for which there was an order
of   anticipatory   bail   in   favour   of   the   appellant   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.  
10. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above,   the
present   appeal   succeeds.     The   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court,   as   well   as,   the   learned   Additional
13

Sessions   Court   dismissing   the   anticipatory   bail   applications   of
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in
connection   with   FIR   No.   77   dated   6.5.2020,   registered   at   P.S.
City   Mataur,   District   S.A.S.   Nagar,   Mohali   are   hereby   quashed
and set aside.  It is ordered that in case of arrest of the appellant
–   Sumedh   Singh   Saini   in   connection   with   FIR   No.   77   dated
6.5.2020,   registered   at   P.S.   City   Mataur,   District   S.A.S.   Nagar,
Mohali for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, he shall
be   released   on   bail   on   furnishing   personal   bond   in   the   sum   of
Rs.1,00,000/­ (Rupees one lakh only) and two sureties of the like
amount and to surrender the passport and to cooperate with the
investigation   (however   without   prejudice   to   his   rights   and
contentions   in   the   pending   proceedings   to   quash   the   impugned
FIR).
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
………………………………………J.
[ASHOK BHUSHAN]
……………………………………..J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………………..J.
DECEMBER 03, 2020 [M.R. SHAH]
14