Ashish Kumar - Edited

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. of 2024
IN THE MATTER OF:

ASHISH KUMAR ... Petitioner
Versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & Ors .

. . .Respondents
INDEX
S. No. Particulars Page No.
1. Notice of Motion .d-
2. Urgent Application 2- ~
3. Court Fees
4
4. List of Dates & Events ~-q
5. Memo of Parties LO-ll)_
6. Petition under Section 407 read with
Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of l3-3Sl
case along with supporting affidavit.
7. ANNEXURE P-1:-
Copy of order dated 24.03.1994 alongwith 86- '=to
its typed copy
8. ANNEXURE P-2:-
Copy of the FIR dated 18.04.1994 :+--l- i-+
\
alongwith its typed copy
9. ANNEXURE P-3:-
Copy of order dated 22.12.1995 passed by
t-g-u3
Ld Single Judge of Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc no
3052-M of 1994 ~~th\+~ tstu.e_
~ C>Mi·
10. ANNEXURE P-4:-
Copy of the chargesheet dated 30.06.2000 llY-13&>
alongwith its true typed copy
11 ANNEXURE-P-5:-
Copy of the order dated 15.10.2004 passed
137-/4--/
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer
Petition ( Crl) no 300 of 2003
12 ANNEXURE-P-6:-
Copy of order dated 16.10.2006 passed by 14-2
Ld Single Judge of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court
13 ANNEXURE-P-7:-
copy of order dated 06.12.2006 directing t 4-3-21~
framing of charge
14 ANNEXURE-P-8:-
Copy of order dated 24.05.2010 passed in ·zts- 2 J t
Crl MA no 680112010 in Crl Rev P no
918/2006
15 ANNEXURE-P-9:-
2/ :t- 2.2 ~
Copy of order dated 29.06.2010
16. ANNEXURE P-10.

Copy of order dated 09.09.2011 229-'2 ~J
17. ANNEXURE-P-11 :-
23tJ--2. 4-5
18 ANNEXURE-P-12:-
2 t-t- 2 q.-g
19 ANNEXURE-P-13:-
2-'t~ - 2~~
20 ANNEXURE-P-14:-
2. SJ
21 ANNEXURE-P-15:-
252.- '2.S<f-
Copy of order dated 15 .03 .2024
22 ANNEXURE-P-16:-
2.55
23 ANNEXURE-P-17:-
2.S6
24 ANNEXURE-P-18:-
Copy of transfer order dated 19.03.2024 25-:;..-2tJ
25 Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for

exemption from filling certified copies, true J_h2-~266
typed copies, certified copies of dim
annexures along with supporting affidavit.
126 I VAKALATNAMA
27 Proof Of Service 268-269
Through
-~
ADARSH PRIYADARSHI AND ASSOCIATES
Advocates for Applicant
A2/7 4, LGF, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029
NEW DELHI Mb. No 8806662746
DATED 2/ ,03.2024 EMAIL ID:Priyadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com
.........
DELHI
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. of2024
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
. . .Respondents
NOTICE OF MOTION
Sir/Madam,
Please find enclosed the copy of the transfer petition being filed by
the petitioner above named, the said petition will be listed before the
Hon'ble Court on or before _ _ _ _ or any other subsequent
date.
Through~

New Delhi-110029
DATED 2/ .03.2024 EMAIL ID: Priyadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

. . .Respondents
URGENT APPLICATION
To
The Deputy Registrar
Delhi High Court
New Delhi
Sir,
Kindly treat the accompanying transfer petition under Section 407
read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. as urgent. The ground of urgency is:-
"Urgent relief is prayed for."

inoner
Through

AHIA,LGF, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029
DATED 2/.03.2024 EMAIL ID: Privadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com

6)
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF;'
ASHISH KUMAR ...Petitioner
Versus
-TJ
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & Ors.
Or ...Respondents
S-n
m
in
. COURT FEES
ms'
•'
"■LVr
'''NCT'OF DELHI COURT FEE ^^~^V|^CUOF DELHI COURT FEE .. a;NCT OF DELHI COURT FEE
DLCT2238t54C2426K ■ DLCt2238i67C242aK
O '■ O* o" ~ 22-MAR-2024 !L 4.lT'OLCT22381SeC2428K,
22-MAR.202'1
22-MAR.2024
t?5 0 'R-f
© Si
itioner
J9'0,
rnfougn
- Jo
, ® 'v
'•''nCT of DELHI COURT FEE
®- DLCT2238I60C2428K
22-MAR-2p24 ADARSH PRIYADARSHI AND ASSOCIATES

~ A2/74, EOF, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029

V?3S
2^m
/All
M2o
p n o
" DATED 2/. 03.2024 EMAIL ID: Privadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com
10 VJ.J-'
\} ^
3 -♦
f: -n
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

. . .Respondents
LIST OF DATES & EVENTS
DATE EVENT
24.03.1994 Respondent no 2, a high ranking and
influential Police official in Punjab in the
year 1994 had grave animosity with the
family of the Petitioner. On account of this,
some false cases were planted on the
Petitioner as well as on his brother at the
behest of Respondent no 2. On 15.03.1994,
Ld Single Judge of Hon'ble Punjab and
Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail
to the Petitioner and his brother Vinod Kumar
in one such matters. On the same day, brother
of Petitioner namely Vinod Kumar, his driver
Mukhtiar Singh and his brother- in- law
Ashok Kumar were Kidnapped by
Respondent nos 2 to 5 and were probably
killed. All these three persons are still
missing for last 30 years. Considering the
gravity of the matter and the fact that life and
liberty of three persons were involved, the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana
in Criminal Misc no 3052- M of 1994, by a
writ of mandamus directed CBI to commence
investigation
18.04.1994 Respondent no 1 CBI registered FIR being
Crime no RC 2(S)/ 94-SIU.V/SIC.II dated
18.04.1994 u/s 120B IPC r/w Sections 342
and 365 IPC.
22.12.1995 The Ld Single Judge of the Hon'ble Punjab
and Haryana in its order recorded, inter-alia,
the following report of CBI:
... .Jn all probability these persons are no

more alive, but in the absence of recovery of
their dead bodiesor other reliable evidence in
this regard, it cannot be established that they
have been killed by Police. In the light of
circumstantial evidence on record, it zs
established that Shri SS Saini, the then SSP
Ludhiana, Shri SS Sandhu SP, BC Tiwari,
SHO and Paramjit Singh, SHO Focal Point
are responsible for causing the
disappearance of Vinod Kumar, Ashok
Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh. "
15.10.2004 On a transfer Petition filed by the mother of

the Petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in Transfer Petition ( Crl) no 300 of
2003 was pleased to transfer the trial from the
Court of Special Judge Ambala ( CBI Court)
to Court of Sessions Judge, Delhi.
30.06.2000 Respondent no 1 filed chargesheet against SS
Saini (Respondent no 2), SS Sandhu (
Respondent no 3), Paramjit Singh (
Respondent no 4) and BC Tiwari (
Respondent no5) u/s 120-B r/w Sections 342,
343 and 364 IPC and Sections 342, 343 and
364 IPC
06.12.2006 By a detailed order dated 06.12.2006, the Ld
Trial Court held that accused no 1 to 5 are
liable to be charged under Section 120B r/w
Sections 343, 342 and 364 IPC.
29.09.2010 By two orders dated 29.09.2010 and
09.09.2011 09.09.2011, the Ld Trial Court also held that
considering the case relates to 1994 and
material witnesses are old and infirm, the
evidence should be recorded on a day to be
day basis.
02.03.2024 Ld Trial Court while noting that the case is
the oldest listed case of the Court listed the
matter for final arguments after closing the
DE. The Ld Trial Court was pleased to fix the
dates of 11.03.2024, 13.03.2024, 15.03.2024,
16.03.2024, 18.03.204, 20.03.2024 and
22.03.2024 for hearing the final arguments
11.03.2024 Part final arguments were heard at length on
11.03.2024
13.03.2024
15.03.2024
16.03.2024
18.03.2024
19.03.2024 Ld Judge Shri Naresh Kumar Laka was
transferred and Ms Sunena Sharma will be
presiding over the Court as Special Judge (
PC Act) CBI- 20 RACC.
Hence the present transfer petition
Through

A2/74, LGF, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi-110029
DATED kh03.2024 EMAIL ID: Priyadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus
. . .Respondents
(PETITION UNDER SECTION 407 READ WITH SECTION 482

CR.P.C. SEEKING TRANSFER OF CASE TITLED "CBI VS
SUMEDH SINGH SAINI AND ORS" BEING SC NO 0212019
(RC NO 2(S)/ 19941 CBIISIC-V/SIC-II) FROM THE COURT OF
MS. SUNENA SHARMA , LD. SPL JUDGE PC ACT ( CBI-20),
RADC TO THE COURT OF SH NARESH KUMAR LAKA, LD
ADJ-07, CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURT) AS THE LD. COURT
OF SH NARESH KUMAR LAKA HAD HEARD THE MATTER
AT LENGTH ON VARIOUS DATES AT THE FINAL HEARING
STAGE BEFORE HE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE
PRESENT ROASTER VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2024
(ANNEXURE- P-18)
MEMO OF PARTIES
ASHISH KUMAR
S/o Late Sh Ratan Singh
R-32, South Ex, Part-II
New Delhi-110049 ... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Central Bureau of Investigation

Through its Director
Block no 3, Ground Floor
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi-110003
2. Sumedh Singh Saini

S/o Sh. Romesh Chander Singh
Rio N -114, 3rd Floor (3A)
Panchsheel Park, New Delhi
3. Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu

S/o Sh Sardar Chhajja Singh,
Retd SP, (Commandant)
Rio House no 715/4, Street no 4
Punjab Mata Nagar,
Pakkhowal Road, Ludhiana, Punjab
4. Paramjit Singh
S/o Sh Ajaib Singh
Rio Officers Flat, Civil Lines, Ludhiana
Punjab
5. Balbir Chand Tiwari

SI o Late Sh Babu Ram
Rio 56A, Rishi Nagar
Humbra Road, Ludhiana,
Punjab
... Respondents
Through

New Delhi-110029
DATED 2./.03.2024 EMAIL ID: Priyadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

. . .Respondents
PETITION UNDER SECTION 407 READ WITH SECTION

482 CR.P.C. SEEKING TRANSFER OF CASE TITLED "CBI
VS SUMEDH SINGH SAINI AND ORS" BEING SC NO
02/2019 (RC NO 2(S)/ 1994/ CBl/SIC-V/SIC-11) FROM THE
COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA , LD. SPL JUDGE PC
ACT ( CBI-20), RADC TO THE COURT OF SH NARESH
KUMAR LAKA, LD ADJ-07, CENTRAL TEES HAZARI
COURT) AS THE LD. COURT OF SH NARESH KUMAR
LAKA HAD HEARD THE MATTER AT LENGTH ON
VARIOUS DATES AT THE FINAL HEARING STAGE
BEFORE HE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PRESENT
ROASTER VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2024 (ANNEXURE P-
18)
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the present petition is being filed by the Petitioner

seeking transfer of criminal case being SC no 02/2019 (RC no
2(s)/ 1994/ CBI/SIC-V/SIC-II) from the Court of Ms. Sunena
Sharma, Ld. Spl. Judge PC Act (CBI-20), RACC to the Court
of Sh. Naresh Kumar Laka, Ld. ADJ-07, Central, Tees Hazari
Court) as the Ld. Court of Sh. Naresh Kumar Laka had heard
the matter at length on various dates at the final hearing stage
before he was transferred to his present roaster as Ld. ADJ-
07, Central, Tees Hazari Court vide order dated 19.03.2024
(Annexure P-18). The present case is one of the oldest
identified cases (FIR is of the year 1994) being 30-year-old
matter and because of the transfer, the new Judge will have to
rehear the matter again, which would result in further delay.
2. That the Respondent no 1, CBI is the investigating and

prosecuting agency. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the
accused persons in the above-mentioned case/ FIR. The
Petitioner herein is the original complainant.
3. That Respondent no 2, was a high ranking and influential

Police official (retired as DGP of Punjab) in Punjab in the
year 1994 and had grave animosity with his maternal aunt's
family. The family of the petitioner were the financers of the
business (Mis. Saini Motors) of his maternal aunt and due to
this reason, the Respondent No. 2 in connivance with
Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 did every effort to ruin them by
registering false cases against during his tenure as SSP,
Ludhiana, Punjab. On 15.03.1994, Ld. Single Judge of
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court granted anticipatory
bail to the Petitioner and his brother Vinod Kumar in one of
the false criminal case planted on them.
4. That The relief given by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab

and Haryana to the petitioner and his brother did not go down
well with Respondent Nos. 2-5 and they abducted the brother
of the Petitioner namely Late Vinod Kumar, brother -in-law
Late Ashok Kumar and their driver Mukhtiar Singh and were
perhaps eliminated by them as the Central Bureau Of
Investigation failed to find out anything about these missing
persons or to recover their dead bodies. All these three
persons are still missing for last 30 years. Considering the
gravity of the matter and the fact that life and liberty of three
persons were involved, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in Criminal Misc no 3052- M of 1994, by a writ of
mandamus directed CBI to commence investigation. For the
perusal of this Hon'ble court the relevant extract of the
order dated 24/03/1994 is reproduced herewith:
"In the circumstances of this case, I am
inclined to direct that the case be referred
immediately to the central bureau of
investigation (CBI) for thorough and detailed
investigation of the entire episode which led to
the disappearance of aforesaid three persons."
A copy of order dated 24.03 .1994 alongwith its typed copy is

annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-1.
5. That pursuant to the above order of the Hon'ble High Court,

Respondent no 1 CBI registered FIR being Crime no RC 2(S)/
94-SIU.V/SIC.II dated 18.04.1994 u/s 120B IPC r/w Sections
342 and 365 IPC. A copy of the FIR dated 18.04.1994
alongwith its typed copy is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-2.
6. That thereafter, on 14/08/1995 in pursuance to order dated

24/03/1994, CBI had filed the investigation report related to 3
allegations: -
i. illegal detention of Ashish Kumar by the
Ludhiana police from 2410211994 to
0210311994 and also his non-surrender to
judicial custody in the evening of 0410311994
despite orders of the CJM, Ludhiana.
ii. Harassment, physical torture and illegal
confinement of the member of the f amity of
Vinod Kumar by Ludhiana police on 1h and 8111
of March, 1994.
iii. Disappearance of Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar
and M ukhtiar Singh, driver.
7. That by order dated 14.09.1995, the Ld Single Judge of
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana after perusing the report of CBI
directed the CBI that the investigation report shall be
submitted within one month from date of order before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. It was further directed that
the state government shall accord necessary sanction as
provided under section 197, Criminal Procedure Code without
any delay. For the perusal of this Hon'ble court the relevant
extract of order dated 14/09/1995 is reproduced herewith: -
"The next course for the central bureau of
investigation zs to submit its report in
accordance with law and thereafter it is the
function of the competent court to go into the
question whether the persons inducted are guilty
or not in a criminal trial. However, to remove
any apprehension from the mind of the
complainant that they would not get fair trial at
Ludhiana, I am of the view that instead of any
other court, investigation report be submitted
before a competent court at Ambala.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the investigation
report shall be submitted within one month from
today before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ambala."
8. That it is pertinent to mention here that in complete disregard

to the order of Ld Single Judge, Central Bureau of
Investigation did not submit report before the concerned Ilaqa
magistrate despite the fact that their entire investigation was
completed.
9. That the Ld. Single Judge of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana
in its order dated 22.12.1995 recorded, inter-alia, the
following:
" ... .In all probability these persons are no more alive,
but in the absence of recovery of their dead bodies or
other reliable evidence in this regard, it cannot be
established that they have been killed by Police. In the
light of circumstantial evidence on record, it is
established that Shri SS Saini, the then SSP Ludhiana,
Shri SS Sandhu SP, BC Tiwari, SHO and Paramjit
Singh, SHO Focal Point are responsible for causing the
disappearance of Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar and
Mukhtiar Singh. "
IO.That by the same order, Show cause notice was also issued to
the Director CBI to show cause why he be not proceeded
against Contempt of Court Act for not filing the Challan
within one month. The State of Punjab through its Chief
Secretary was also directed to place on record by way of an
affidavit the cause for delay and the reason for not according
sanction forthwith on receipt of request from CBI. Shockingly
the Ld Single Judge also noted the life threats extended to him
for hearing the matter and passing directions against Police
Officials. Copy of order dated 22.12.1995 passed by Ld
Single Judge of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Criminal Misc no 3052-M of 1994 is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-3.
11. That on 30.06.2000, Respondent no 1 filed chargesheet

against SS Saini (Respondent no 2), SS Sandhu (Respondent
no 3), Paramjit Singh (Respondent no 4) and BC Tiwari
(Respondent no 5) u/s 120-B r/w Sections 342, 343 and 364
IPC and Sections 342, 343 and 364 IPC and thereafter the
case was committed to the court of Ld. special judge, Ambala
on 13/08/2001 i.e., after a delay of more than one year. A
copy of the chargesheet dated 30.06.2000 alongwith its true
typed copy is Annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-
4.
12.That the Respondent Nos. 2 to No. 5 took every effort to

delay the trial from the day one by firstly evading the service
of summons/notice and thereafter by not appearing in court by
and filing exemption applications on one pretext or the other
or by taking adjournments which is also evident from the fact
that it took about a year for the Ld. Judicial Magistrate to
finally commit the case to the court of Sessions for trial.
13. That petitioner/complainant was constrained to file a transfer
petition being Transfer Petition ( Crl) no 300 of 2003, which
was allowed on 15/10/2004 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India and the present case was transferred from Ambala to
Delhi. A copy of the order dated 15.10.2004 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Crl) no 300 of
2003 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5.
14. That even after the transfer of present case from Ambala to
Delhi the case was listed for 16 times but charges were not
framed against the respondent No. 2 to 5. Left with no
alternative, late Amar Kaur (mother of
Petitioner/complainant), then aged about 95 years filed a
petition before this Hon'ble Court seeking expeditious trial of
the case. The Hon'ble High Court, while accepting the right
of the victim viz. late Mrs Amar Kaur to have a
speedy/expeditious trial and considering the delay being
caused due to the conduct of the respondent No. 2 to 5
directed the Ld. trial court while disposing of the petition to
hear arguments on charge on the next date of hearing and pass
appropriate orders thereon without giving any adjournment to
any of the parties. A Copy of order dated 16.10.2006 passed
by Ld Single Judge of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. M.C
no 6181/2006 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-6.
15. That thereafter the Ld. trial court passed a detailed order dated
06.12.2006. The Ld. Trial Court held that respondent No. 2 to
5 are liable to be charged under Section 120B r/w Sections
343, 342 and 364 IPC. A copy of order dated 06.12.2006
directing framing of charge is annexed herewith and marked
as Annexure P-7.
16.That on several occasions, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as

well as the Ld. trial court has ordered expeditious proceedings
and especially a day-to-day trial as the case is very old.
However, only due to the acts of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5,
the day-to-day trial could not be conducted. The relevant
orders are reproduced herein below:
i. Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6181/2006 on
16110/2006 (Annexure P-6)
" However, it is pointed out that even after the

transfer of the said case, the matter has been listed
before the special judge, CBI, Delhi as many as 16
times but the arguments on charge have not been
heard so far.
It goes without saying that expeditious trial in a
criminal case is the right of the petitioner. Date
fixed in this case is 2812911112006. It is made clear
that the Ld. Judge shall hear arguments on charge
on the aforesaid dates and pass appropriate orders
thereon without giving any adjournment to any of
the parties "
11. Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

in Crl.M.A number 6801/2010 in Crl. Revision
P.No. 918/2006 on 24/05/2010 (which is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-8):
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will

be expedient and in the interest ofjustice that the
evidence of PW-1 and PW-9 at least be recorded
by the trial court on day-to-day basis. The cross
examination by all the four accused persons shall
be carried out as far as possible on day-to-day
basis"
111. Order passed by the Ld. trial court in the present

case on 29/06/2010 by Poonam Chaudhary, Ld.
Additional Sessions Judge (which is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-9):-
"/ am of the opinion that there is no ground for

postponing the dates fixed for evidence as there is
no stay of proceedings by the Hon 'ble High Court
and the witnesses P W1 Smt. Amar Kaur is an old
lady and PW Smt. Meenakshi Saini at the serial
No. 9 in the list of witnesses is also old and
siiffering from cancer. However, as the petition
under section 482 Cr.P. C. filed by the accused is
listed on l11d and 6 July in the Hon 'ble court the
dates of evidence would now be 11315/07/07/2010.
The evidence would thereafter continue day-to-day
as matter is old one. Applications are accordingly
disposed of"
iv. Order passed by the Ld. trial court in the present

case on 0910912011 by Ms. Santosh Snehi Mann,
Ld. Additional Sessions Judge (which is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-10)
"... ... ... ... .. keeping in view the age of this case, I
am of the opinion that trial in this case should be
held on day-to-day basis. It is ordered accordingly.
Ld. defence counsel submitted that reasonable time
be given to them to adjust their case diary. In view
of the submissions, it is ordered that trial in this
case shall be conducted on day-to-day basis w.ef
1211012011. It is made clear that the state shall be
taken up after the cases already listed on a
particular day. "
17. That despite these orders, the accused were successful in

delaying the trial on one pretext or the other. It took 4 years to
complete the deposition of complainant itself. The chief
examination of the complainant started on 28.11.2011 and
was completed on 14.05.2012. The cross examination was
conducted from 14.05.2012 to 18.12.2015 running into more
than 400 pages.
18. The prosecution cited 36 witnesses and due to prolonged trial

some of the witnesses died and some were given up. In all a
total of only 21 prosecution witnesses deposed out of 36.
Accused no 1 cited 3 witnesses and got deposed 2 witnesses
and dropped one witness; Accused no 2 cited 10 witnesses
and 5 out of 10 deposed; Accused no 3 cited 14 witnesses but
9 deposed and accused no 4 cited 5 witness out of which 5
deposed.
19.That On 14.09.2018 an application was moved by respondent

No. 2 u/s 311 CrPC seeking recall of PW9 Rajive Bhalla
(former Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court) for the
purpose of further cross examination, which was disallowed
by the Ld Trial Court. A copy of order dated 14.09.2018 is
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-11.
Interestingly, Respondent No. 5 in connivance with all the
respondents kept mum till 15/03/2024 and when the trial was
again expedited and the final arguments were heard on behalf
of the prosecution at length, an application was filed under
section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recalling of PW9 Hon'ble retired
Justice Rajive Bhalla for cross examination on behalf of
respondent No. 5 on the ground that respondent No. 5 did not
get an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness.
However, the Hon'ble court allowed the application and fixed
the cross examination of the witness PW9 for 20/03/2024.
However, the Hon'ble Court continued to hear further final
argument on behalf of the Central Bureau Of Investigation on
16/03/2024 and 18/03/2024.
20.That by order dated 02.03.2024, the Ld Trial Court while

noting that the case is the oldest listed case of the Court listed
the matter for final arguments after closing the DE. The Ld
Trial Court was pleased to fix the dates of 11.03.2024,
13.03.2024, 15.03.2024, 16.03.2024, 18.03.204, 20.03.2024
and 22.03.2024 for hearing the final arguments. A copy of
order dated 02.03.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-12.
21. That part final arguments were agam heard at length on

11.03.2024. A copy of order dated 11.03.2024 is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-13.
22.That part final arguments were heard at length on 13.03.2024.

In order to delay the matter an application was moved by
accused no 4 to recall PW9 for his cross examination. This
was clearly a dilatory tactics as identical application filed by
Accused no 1 was dismissed way back on 14.09.2018. A copy
of order dated 13.03.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-14.
23. That by order dated 15 .03 .2024, the application of accused no

4 was allowed by the Ld Trial Court, subject to cost. A copy
of order dated 15.03.2024 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-15. That final arguments were heard at length on
15.03.2024.
24.That part final arguments were heard at length on 16.03.2024.

A copy of order dated 16.03.2024 is annexed herewith and
25.That part final arguments were heard at length on 18.03.2024

A copy of order dated 18.03.2024 is annexed herewith and
26. That after hearing the matter for 5 days at length,

unfortunately on 19.03.2024, the Ld Judge Shri Naresh
Kumar Laka was transferred and Ms Sunena Sharma will now
be presiding over the Court as Ld Special Judge ( PC Act)
CBI- 20 RACC. It is pertinent to mention in this regard that:
(i) That the Court of Sh Naresh Kumar Laka has heard the
matter at length on 5 dates. It is a part heard matter as
evident from orders dated 11.03.2024, 13.03.2024,
15.03.2024, 16.03.2024 and 18.03.2024;
(ii) The record of the case is voluminous runnmg m
thousand of pages and the Court of Sh Naresh Kumar
Laka has gone through the entire record of the case;
(iii) The entire Defence Evidence was recorded in the
presence of Sh Naresh Kumar Laka and he had the
occasion to see the demeanour of witnesses first hand;
(iv) The New judge will have to hear the matter afresh and
as evident from order dated 02.03.2024, the court is
already burdened with other matters and this is the
oldest listed matter of the Court. Starting the re- hearing
all over again by a new judge will delay the matter
further;
(v) The FIR is of year 1994 and a lot of witnesses have
died or were given up due to prolonged trial, the delay
is solely attributable to the accused. Any further delay
would gravely prejudice and harm the complainant who
has been sincerely and diligently pursuing the
complaint for last three decades.
27.That being aggrieved by the above, the Petitioner is filing the

present transfer petition, inter-alia, on the following grounds:
GROUNDS
A. FOR That the Court of Sh Naresh Kumar Laka has heard the
matter at length on 5 days. It is a part heard matter as evident
from orders dated 11.03.2024, 13.03.2024, 15.03.2024,
16.03.2024 and 18.03.2024;
B. FOR That the record of the case is voluminous running in
thousands of pages( more than 10 thousand) and the Court of
Sh Naresh Kumar Laka has gone through the entire record of
the case;
C. FOR That the entire Defence Evidence was recorded in the
I
presence of Shii Naresh Kumar Laka, Ld Special Judge, CBI

and he had the occasion to see the demeanour of witnesses first
hand. Further statements of accused under Section 313 was also
recorded by the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka, Ld Special
Judge, CBI;
D. FOR That the new judge will have to hear the matter afresh and
as evident from order dated 02.03.2024, the court is already
burdened with other matters and this is the oldest listed matter
of the Court. Starting the hearing ail over again will delay the
matter further;
E. FOR That the FIR is of year 1994 and a lot of witnesses have
died or given up due to prolonged trial, the delay is solely
attributable to accused. Even one of the charge-sheeted accused
has died. Any further delay would gravely prejudice and harm
the complainant who'has been sincerely and diligently pursuing
the complaint for last three decades.
gs?
F. FOR That it is expedient in the interest ofjustice that the
transfer sought be allowed by this Hon'ble Court.
28. That the Petitioners herein have not filed any other similar transfer
petition before this Hon'ble Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court
or any other Court ofthe Country.
29. That the petition is being moved bonafide in the interest ofjustice.
Grave prejudice "svould be caused to the petitioner if the present
petition is not allowed.
PRAYER
It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court

may graciously be pleased to:
(i) Pass appropriate order and direction thereby transferring the

case titled as "CBI VS SUMEDH SINGH SAINI AND
ORS" BEING SC NO 02/2019 (RC NO 2(S)/ 1994/

CBI/SIC-V/SIC-II)FROM THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA
SHARMA , LD. SPL JUDGE PC ACT( CBI-20), RACC
TO THE COURT OF SH NARESH KUMAR LAKA, LD
ADJ-07, CENTRAL TEES HAZARI COURT);
(ii) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
in the interest ofjustice.
&titioner
Through

New Delhi-110029
DATED L..1.03 .2024 EMAIL ID: Priyadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

. . .Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I ASHISH KUMAR S/o Late Sh Ratan Singh aged about 61 years

R-32, South Ex, Part-II, New Delhi-110049do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the petitioner in the captioned case and am aware of

the facts and circumstances of the case based upon my personal
~--f::.~::~·::~-~ knowledge and hence am competent to depose this affidavit.

'i).\ 0 --·i;:•i~'.
~t~~.~*~11t the accompanying petition seeking transfer of case titled

(~\~~~~~Jr VS SUMEDH SINGH SAINI AND ORS" BEING SC NO
~~. .;:~~-:.-~-.:~::<(;'-::;~:,012/2019 (RC NO 2(S)/ 1994/ CBI/SIC-V/SIC-11) FROM THE
"·~:- .::'. [:.:·~';:·,: ~ ;:[:.., .. ·. #,.,";~,.. ...
---.'..·-.-·~:··'.:.·.:·:::--. COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA , LD. SPL JUDGE PC
ACT ( CBI-20), RACC TO THE COURT OF SH NARESH
KUMAR LAKA, LD ADJ-07, CENTRAL TEES HAZARI
copies has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions,
contents of which may be read as part of this affidavit and the
same are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The
legal information received is believed to be correct.
D
VERIFICATION:
Verified on - -March, 2024 that the contents of the

abovementioned affidavit are true and correct and nothing material
has been concealed therefrom.
a:>uese;r.i .\w Uf pauC519 S9\.I

OljM iueuodep 9'41 peW&.tePI t
• - -~· -··---·- • 6. I
2 1 MAR ?WU!
, ",;. L .•. ,
0
0
0
0
0
~i~L,_
I... , .
i
i : ' '~
;r
~
0
0 .' Criminal Misc.No.4274 of 1i~f4·
&
0 Criminal Misc~No.4035 of 1994
0 Criminal Mis~No.305.Z-M of 1994 I
.... __________ _
0
.0
0 j .
·o Mr.R.S.Cheema, Senior k::lvocate, ,
I
with Sarvshri RaJiVe Bhalla,. ~rrreet Singh,

0 Vikram Singh and M.S.Sidhu, Mvo .ates, ·
for the petitioner. '
0 . ..------·.
•, /
.o Mr.G.K.Chatrath, Mvocate Genera.;r- Pi.lhjab. . / .-

with Mr.Ashok Aggarwa,l, Addl.A.'.·Gr Purl)ab,,/'.. ··
for the State. :
·O I '•
Mr.s.s.sandhu, S.P. in person. ·1

0
~r .H.L.Sibal,Senior Mvoca·~e, with
0 Mr.Deepak Sibal, .l\dvo~ate, for
. I
0 Mr~Sumedh Singh,Saini, S.S.P.

.i
0
·O On 17-3-1994,tli.e Criminal Misc.N?,.;t035- ·of 1~fg·4.
' . !
0 was treated to be a Habeas Corpus Petitio.ri. and a direction.~
- .J ; . . ~: .t ;. {
0 was issued to the State of Punjab through; theM.v·oca t~ i·

' :
0 General,l'unj ab, that all possible means at rthe dispof al '
0 of the State be employed to trace Vined !<ifmar, ~shok;.Kumar;
0 and Mµkhtiar :Singh., and they be produced fn: Court
;
ofy :. . <~ ·)
0 is-3-1994 at 2 P.M • . On 18-3-1994, in res~onse to th~
1 ., .
0 notice of the petition, S.S.S?ndhu, Supertn~endent 6~·
..... ._;
·
...'
.o a_ffi(!:R,vlt'.~
! '
Police (East),Ludhiana, filed his In his:
0 affi~avit, he-explained as to how Vin:~7 ~mar: ha~

0 accompanied him to Police Station Di.visioii· 'No·.1,1'.-udh'.ian~,
0 and from where Vinod Kumar along with. his· .d~iver
;
le ~
rt
0 at abouta.15 P.M. On that date, the learned
;
Mvocat~
. ;·... ...-----: ·'
0 General,Punjab, had sought more time to s~arch the
·o aforesaid three persons, and on his requeit~ more t~ine
0 ·· was give~ and the case was adjoµrned to .2z;..·3-1994. pn ·:. '.
0 ~' 21-3-1994, affidavit of Kultar Singh, s.P~Headquax;te~s:;(\]
0 ! . .. ~-'·'. ~; . j
· was placed op record, detailing the efforts: made <by. ~~: ;r, d
~'--~~-'-~~~~~~~-:-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..:_~~~_.:.1._.- ~ ~-·-_·_·~1~ ~ -t~ f~l~- ~- 1

-'.J
0-
0 -2-
0
D Cr .• ~isc.No.4274 of 1994
&
g Cr.Misc.No.4035 of 1994
-0
0
in
Cr 7 Misc.No.3052-M of 1994
. j
-~
police to locate the missing pe~sons. M~re time was
:.7
sought. Consequently, the case wa.s adjoi:J:rned for today.
0
0 It is necessary to -state as to why the.
Q miscellaneous petition was treated as -Haqeas Corpus

..
0 Petition and why a direction was issued to the State to
j
D trace. the missing persons. It a-11 start~d wi·th the

I
0 registration.of FIR No.22 dated' 22-2-1991·under -Sections
0 406/420/465/120-B, I .P ~c. r~gistered at ,.olice Station

. I ..
Focal Point, Ludhiana, on a complaint made by .one Jar.nail
0 -l!it . . I .
() Singh, alleging therein that,M/s Saini Mdtors,deale25../:··:.;;.

-\-. ' ._.,_
g in Maruti cars~ were selling car.s in pr~,itim. A ra~d .
was conducted by the police. Cer.tatn documents _wer.e
Q
taken into possession.· App:rehending arrJ~t. the ·
proprietors of M/s Saini Motors.namely Meenakshi- Saini,

Narinder Saini and Rajiv:·'Saini, approache~;this Cou:r:t
--
seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal.M£s~~Appiication
0 .
I
I
No.3059-M of 1994. Tlilis application came -µp for~ hearing-----
{' befote R.K.Nehru,J, on 28-2-1994, on .:~il~,date, -~a..;.tntedi-r'
0
-o bail was allowed and notice was issu~ t1 the St~te ·<;>f
Q Punjab for 7-3-1994. Criminal Mlsc.Applijcation -~o.30$2·-M

of 1994 was presented on 27-2-1994 befor~ the P-0n'hi~
0 1 ( r~
c Chief Justice by Vined I<Umar, ·alleglng bcf-assment and -~·
.o illegal detention by the Police of ·Poli.ca\ Station,F~cal .\
q.
\._;
Point,Ludhiaia. The petition for hearin~ was entrusted :i
--o to R.K.Nehru,J. In the petiti0n, Vined. -1<'.umar alleg~q_·
~ ~
·]
j
• • ' ·- .1
tr;J that his father, Rattan -Singh and mother .~ar Kaur, ryaa -.i)
. . .. ~ .· i·. :i!
0 depqsited R~.24 lacs each with M/s Saini ~1?tors,payiJ:'.:¢,~,::jj
to Maruti Udyog Limited in the year 1Q9-2..:'93·. Th~s m{-.¢~~~:):f:~
.o
·o
J"'I l !~:::}~ '!./
·~
··O
- -·
D
0
0 ..,..J
·~
-3-
0
0
Cr.Misc.No.4274 of 1994 I
0 ''
&
cr.Misc.No.4035 0£ 1994
I in
Cr.~isc,No.3052-M of 1994
I
was paid through Allahabad Bank, Luqn14a.·, by taking
a loan from the sa-id bank. When ·the pr~mises of M/s

Sain~ Motors were raided, their books o, I
accounts were
::::.:::yh: ::: :::i:~::: :::r:~enr::::: ::::gea

that on 24-2-1994, the p~~ice raicled -th, re~-~denc~ of his
father and removed certain fi~es and doquments and.also
'
took along with them,his brother-Ashish'.Kumar. The police
5
did not have any w.arrant of arrest ·nor was ll.sb.ish Kumar
0
wanted by the police in any case or in Ble F.I.R. The
0 I .. .
police wanted to knoe as to why rnouey w~·s given ·t.o M/ ~r-··--
• tf/Q
9 Saini Motors. On 25-2-1994, wM;ch w~s- , ho~iday, ~n
I
0
'1 application was move·d- before the Duty. Migistrate,, Llidhiana
0
to seek the presence of .Ashi sh Kumar be lore the, Co~r.t-.
..G On this application, notice was issued ~or 26-2-t9~4.
0 I
On 26-2-1994, the poll.ce did n.ot proQ.uc1 ~s~ish ·Kumar .~nd
0 case was then fixed for 27-2-1994. In ~he peti;,tiori:,V;inod
0 KuJl\ar further ~-prayed that' necessary or1e~s be pas~ed
.. 0 so as to protect him from the illega:ll:~d~tention that may
0 be effected by the Ludhiana police .and necessary order~
'Q be 'Passed,releasing Ashish Kumar,. with ~ further direction
Q !
to the.police that he and his family.members be not
0 harassed. On this application, R.~.Nei:J, issued.
.0
notice to the State of Punjab through Jvocate General,
··G
Punjab, for 4-3-1994. In the meanwhile, it was directed
0 I ..
that incase Vinod Kumar is wanted in an~ case regi~.tered
0 i i
at Police Station Focal Point,Ludhiana,. r~ be relet~;~ <.
0 on bail to· the satisfaction of the arresting Officeri. ·. .: .
0 ' I ~ : x ~ :. -~ St: .
In the meanwhile, one application was £~lea in ·the.LGoiirt~~
t:J~
·o
. - 1_ - - - -
---'-=-r-----~--
0
0
0
0
I
0
C'
-
...~
•:....
·;1-...(,
_/L, i
i
'
-4-
0
0
Cr.Misc.No.4274 of 1994
0 &
cr.Misc.No •.4035 of 1994 )
0 · in
££.:filsc.No.3052-M of' 1994
0
0 of Chief Judicial Magistrat~, !l..ldhiana, br Sh.~.K.Talwar, ;
0 Mvocai;:e, on behalf of Ashok Kumar for" p~dduction of
0 Ashisb Kumar. Though notice -wa,s issued to the police
9 for 2?-·2-1994, but on account of non-appep.rapce., notice

0 was again issued for 27-2-1994. 'It was only on
.· {
0 -28-2-1994 that ap~earance was put in. Otj 1-3-1994,
0 the police made a report to the effect t~at ~~lice have
.0 neither arrested Ashish Kumar, nor th~po~ice requires

.o pim in investigation of FIR No.22. . On 3f3-1994, 11.sh:l:sh
;
0 Kilmar was produ_ced before the 'I.llaqa Ma;strate. As per
0 the case of the State, the involvement otAshis~ Kum~:-:.

0 came to their knowledge on 2-3-1994 when ·Krish~n K~ar,
0 Manager of the Allahabad Bank, gave stat, ent,.in which
·O he had mentioned that Ashish Kumar and his broth~r ,Vinoe. ·;
·o ~·ar, had taken loans of Rs.62 lacs in the name of·

' -
0 their father , Rattan Singh and mother ,.l\rnar .Kaur. .According:
,! .
.·
0 to the S~at~, on the statement made by the Manager,
0 Ashish fumar was· remanded .to p~lice cus,ody fo.i;. one day.
0 -Ashish I<Umar was produced before the Chjef Judicial .,
·o· Magistrate,Ludhiana, on 4-3-1994, an!i}t,;p1ayer of the .. --
0 State to remand him further to police aistody was

I
.0 declined and he was ordered-to.be remanJed to judicial
0 .01stody-. Despite the order of Chief Ju~icial

. I
0 Magistrate, fi.shish l<Umar was not sent 't<p the jail on
' .
0 the same day, but was sent to Central J ~il, Ludhiana;,
0 on the next day, i.e.S-3-1994. Criminal Misc.
,0 Application No,.3052-M of 1994 in. which. notice had peen

I .
·O issued for 4-3-1994, was again adjourned to 7-3-19;94 as
0 counsel for the State stated that conce'f ned I .o. ha;s
.... n:ot:. :
i ~.
~ :•··:· . /
0 ..
. .
_n
~ ___ .. -··--·· ·-
,,
·O .,
r-O--
0
j
0
0 ,,.
,..-
~ ~~
• .. )I-·'
.J'"
0 -5-
0
0 Cr.Misc.No.4274 of 1994
&
0 . i:n .
cr.Mis£.s..No.3052-M o~ 1994
0
0 turned up and secondly, the connected iatt'er filed by
0 prc;iprietors of M/s Saini M9tors wa.s fi~ed for 7-3-1"994.
i
0 Con_s~quently,this Cr.Misc.application r_·.as adjoufne.d to
0 7-3-1994. ·l·-
0 On 5-3-1994, Crimi~~l Misc.11..pwlication No.3546
0 of :1994 was put up at my residence una!r the orders of
~
0 the Hon 'bl.e Chief Justi~e. Vinod Kumar, appeared with
0 the application,in person, in which he,had stated that
0 because of dispute between the s.S.P. ~f Ludhiana,
. . I . .
0 Mr .,Sumedh Singh Saini end proprietors 9£ M/s Saini Motor~,
I
0 who are clo_sely related~ 'he has ~een_ dragged

0 unnecessarily and he apprehends that ifcase he visits
q Ludhiana without proper police protectton, ~a will .·be
taken into Olstody despite the orders ~£ t1" iS ·court ancr
0
0
0 will be severely beaten up or even liJidated. He had
0 further stated that his father had .exp-lred .on 5-3-1994,
0 but because of fear, he cannot go to r4ahiana, to p~~~orrr-

'
0 the last rites of his father-. '
He bad a1so mentioned a·s·:
0 to how his brother Ashish RUmar was· _"j::aken into cu:istod.y
... :;-;.:~ .
0 on 24-2-1994,but was produced only on 3-3-1994!when he
I
i
0 was remanded to police custody. As· se~iqus a~le'gations
i
0
0
0
we.re levelled again-st Sh.Sumedh Singh .Saini,S.S.P.
lUdhiana, a di<ection "as issued ~o

of Poli.ce,Chandigarh, to' .provide adequrte police .. " ...
t+ Inspector Genera'
0 protection to Vined l<Umar. The Chief Judicial :Hagistrate~,

.· '
0 Ludhi;~ma, was aiso directed ~o· pass orrers,relea~:tng,
.o Ashish Kumar on bail forthwith, so as ·jto enable ~in\ :to
I . -
0 perform -!;he last rite? O'f his deceased~father. N~tice,
0 was also issued to Sh.Sumedh Singh Saini ,s.• s .P .Lddhiana'.
i • r ' •
0 to be present in Court on 9-3~199.~ ... to an~wer th~

l"'•....
.-·r.
0 ~
,,
0
0
0
0
0.
·-6-
0
&
0 Cr.Mi.sc.No.4035 of 1994
0 in
Cr.Misc.No.3052-M of 1994
0 .
0 alle~ations made in the application. on 9-3-199·4,
0 Mr.Saini did not appear.
0 Another Criminal Misc.Application No.3633 of

o-__ l
1994 dated 8-3-1994 was also put up bef9re me by Vined
0 Kumar, in which h~ stated that after pe1form1ng the last
0 rites of his father, he came to Chandigcfh along with
0 two security officials provided by the qrianatgarh Police.

I
0 He made a call to his residence at LudhJana. Hl,s wife
0 picked up the telephone. On t~e telephj··· e,he(pe~itioner)
0 heard her enquiring as to who· was knock . g at the door .
0 of her bed-room, and ~hereafter, he he

~·.
shoats !Je
1
have
come from police station and incase y~u ~o not open the
0
door, we will break do"tom the doo):'· o'f the· bed-r.oooi.. ;~
0 '
had further alleged that over-the· tel~pntirie, he could
0 J ..
hear certain police officials saying .'tha'.t they ·'want the
0 I
o· petitioner by all means, and also AshisJ ~mar. Theiy _a:l:so

asked a.s to·why the s.s.• P. had been su,01'.ted to the High
0
Cour:j::. They als~ threatened td· ·~ontinuel narassinen~- and .,
0
to ppysically eliminate the petitioner, ilt' .. they fouria him.
0
0 Vinod ~mar had f~ther alleged tha~~~~~olice beg~n
0 to beat up all the male members and a'bus~ the ladi~s,
and eventually took away Promod Kumar., b~other ~f the
0
. '
petitioner, Shri Ali, crder ly of peti tion~.r' s brother-in-
0
0 law, Mukhtiar Singh,petitioner's
I
driver.and petitioner's
,
brother's servant. '

Police also searched· 'the house i·o.f
0
I .
Vined Kumar's br-0ther-in-law 1 s house, who stood sur.ety
0
. '
0 for 'bail fo~ Ashish F'umar, ·and also tookj ~~~ away·_ \Two
affidavits were also filed; one by Parmoff K:.imar sort of
0 l ;'."
.. . - " .j:: :
0 Rattan Singh and another by A"llar Kaur wl.fow or ·Ratl:1'~/'-· ,.
0 I ~,
_{)_~~-'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1'--~~~~·-i~~··~~~:j_:~~~
0
0 !. ... _
....,.
0 .,. ·"'":-•·--···._,.,,, . :.-1.1

. .
...... ~· ~·. -....... .: . ·...
·-·-r-_@
. (
0 ~?
0
0
l~
0 -7- .--
,i.. '
0
cr.Misc.No.4274 of 1994
0 &
0 · in
Cr.Misc.No.3052-M of 1994
0
•'
0 Singh, stating therein as to how the ~olice took them
• j
0 i~to custody and raided the house of iajinder Kumar,
0 brother-in-law 0£. the petitioner. Thiy' further stated
0 ,.. .,)'
tliat tqey were releaS!ed_ a~ 5.30 P.M. ·tn B-3-1994-. Since·
rs·-- -·..._,
the allegations
.. made in the applicati9n
. as well as the
1
0 affidavits were very serious in nature, and at that
0 stage, :l t appeared to the Court that Sh.Sumedh Singh Sal.ni
I •
0 s.s.P. Ludhiana, and Pararnjit Singh,SjIO, 419-hicna; had

I
0 commi tt.ed contemp..t of this Court, a s"1ow-cause notice
0 was issued to them. Since Mr.Saini htd. not appeare~ .

0 despite the: order of this Court, bailrhle warra.nts .. in the
0 su,m of Rs.10,000/- were issued fo~ 15~3~1994, j"

in; order
J
~ ....
{) tq secure his presence. Sh.Sumedh. Sitgh Sai"ni,SSP;
~I
0 presented a petition at the reside~ce:j of Addi:ional
0 Registrar(Judic~al) which was entertained by the orders
0 of the Hon •ble Chief Justice. Sh .Saibi presented t;he :

? .
0 petition·at my residence on 11-3-~994~ though i t was a
0 holiday. In his petition, he stated Fhat Vi~od "¥umar
0 and Ashish Kumar are the persons who ~ndulge in ·cheatinp.

·1 . y_.t;.~· .. -~
O··· and forgery. They had taken loans. of Rs .62 lacs ·each £rem
0 I
'
the Bank, for ~elling ma:nti cars in
l
J _la~k m~rke.t • ."A:
0 ! mention was made to FIR No.44 dated lf-3-1994 under

I
0 .
Sections 406/120-B, IPC, P.S.Kotwali, Ludhiana,reg:Lster.er
' . ~
0 a:gainst Vined I<Umar, Ashish Kumar I two firms ana· M/s

. I l• . .
·O Saini Moto~s. A mention was also maa.r with rega.rd to .
0 two cases, FIR No.~26 dated 1~-9-1980:under Sect~on ·7 or.
0 the Essential Commodities Act and FIR} No.294 datec'l.
0 9-5-1978 under Sections 379/447 ,·I.P.d_~ ,P.S.Divi~i0n Nq.~:
:o Ludhiana, registered against Vined Kumar. Be furthe·r '
~l;J..eg~d that Vined l<tunar and his wife' are passp_tjr-t

0 . ...
~
.;"t
~ ·"t·..
·-
-o
-·0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
f Cr.Misc.No.4274
. & .
of 1994
-B-
· in
Cr.Mi2c.No~3052-M of 1994
0
0
-holders and are likely to misnse the orders of 'this
'i
0 Court by fieeing from India. P..e further. explained that
j -
0 he ~as on leave and had no l<nowledge pfi the order of this
I
0 Court.vide which he had been asked to ~rpear on 9-3-1994.
0 After return from leave on 9~3-1994..- he1- le_arnt about the
6 order. F.e,thus, prayed that Vinod I<'qmaf and As.hish .. KtJ.mar
0
0
0
0
~~~:~~~t::~::::~-:~~:i~:~::~.Up::
counse~
insistence, notice was ·issued to
::.
"for Vinon Kuz:nar
0 for the next d"ay,i.e.:1.2-3-1994, which w~s a hoiidqy.
0 Vinod Ri.un_ar along with his counf?el,Shri,_R .. s.cneema;··sr-.
0 Advocate, appeared on 12-3-1994 and p~ayed
' for.tfine to
.!
0 file reply to the application. The case was adjourned· to
j •
I
0 15-3-1994. The prayer of Mr.Saini for ta~in-g into
0 oistody Vinod Kumar and Ashish I<umar w'af ·not accepted at
0 that stage. However, an undertaking was.taken frdm· the
. ·1 ..
0 counsel that Vinod Kumar and Ashish
.
·Kumar
i
will not leave
·o I Chandigarh !=-ill further orders • .On 15-r-1994,·
i
0
.0 I anticipatory bail was allowed to Vip.od· f<Umar in FiiR No.22
• ""°.S.:.ri'/'
dt·.22-2-1994 and, FIR No.• 44 dated 10-3-lr94. Ashlsh ·Kumar

I
0 w.as also allowed "bail in FIR No.44 date!l 10-3-.199·4. The

0 ope;r-atbre part of the order is as ~nder :-
0
II :Having heard the. learned COunsel for the
() - I
parties at lenQth, I am ·of thei view that ·.-~he
0 I
petitioner is entitled to the relief Df
.~ anticipatory bail. In Crl~Mi+·'lo.3os9-M of·
1994, theproprietors. of M/s Sa:tni M9tors,~ ')::he
0. I ( ··!,
0 principal accused, were granted an1<i

,. ·. ~'.I·'";
cipn:49ki
·~:_ -.·~,
-0 .;__
t. -~.·~ :. i·. :.: ·
••
i
-.'!
-~.
~n~-~---------------------------~----_..c:;:J.·~~~L~·.
.o
.-
,
":.. }
·o . . .
... --~-@·
i
0
0 l ~ .·
';?J~·.
0 r·
"' '
("}
~-
; -9- r---~\11.J~ .
0 . J
'~ ~-; .. ~J
0
0
&
Cr .l"lisc.No.4035 of 1994
in
1
·fil:~loP.r J
9h 0 w"
L
.
"!fTicftii""'--
,._ Oyp ;:'L'1J
l!,"/i=>£·· >' • ~
C.,TlqJlr:fb- , "' I b....~_--..
~arlJ ·~~zy,
0 Cr ,Misc.No.3052-M ·of 1994
....-
0 . l
bail and,therefore, no exception~c~ be mad.e ·=·
0
in the case of the petitioner. ~ deserves the
0 ·1 .
same treatment. Th~refore, i t isjordered that
0
in the event of arrest of the pe~itioner, he
01
will be released on bail on his ;furnishing
0
personal bonds to the satisfaction of the
0 . •,
1'rresting Officer. Petitioner shall join.
0 l ··-
investigation as and when requiryd by t~e police.
0
P.etitioner shall not leave the ~~un:trv wi~hout
0
prior permission of th~s Court.· e interrogation
0
if any, shall be made in the pre ei'.lce of caU.ris~i
,,
0
for the peti tionec. Ashish Ku.mat-'., brother oi the
0
petitioner, who is on h~il in pu~suance of ~raers
0
of this Court, shall .remain on bril. Ash~sh Ku~~r
0
shall also join investigation as and when reqqirea.·
J:
0 by the po~ice and shall not .lea~e the country
0 without the.pr~or permission'of ~~is Court. ·The
0 prayer of the St"te for taking into custody the
.I ... .
0 oetitioneri1 and his brother,Ashish:l<umar, is .·.·.
- . I
0
qeclined. .As far as F'.rR No ..~;~ ,ated 10-3-1994 is
0 concerned, I 2ll"_l.of the view tha1 complaint.on the
0 basis of which_ F:rR No·.44 .dated ~0-3-1994 was. ··
0 •
registereq is nothing· but a
J
rep~tition of the
0
statementio~ the Chief Manag~r Jecorded under
0
Section 161 Cr .P-.C. in FIR No.21.
I
Though the·
0
ceunse'l for the State tried to 4raw distinction
0 \ .
between the st~tement made urider Section 161 Cr.PC
0
and FIR N~.44 dated 10-3-1994, but on peru~al 9f
0
bo"th, I find that there is no materiai dif~er.~~c~.
;: • i ; ~·;
0
I ::
The allegations conta:ined in th~ 'ccmplalnt\,~'e1~t~

i ~ '· ~ . ---~~
0 . .
!
n __ ···-···---\------.----·-··· -12~---- .
·-----
. _. ____ . - ·-
-- ···- - -
0
0
0
0
0 f{ -
0 J -10-
0
0 Cr .Misc.No.4274 of 1994
&
0 Cr .Mi:sc.No.4035 of 1994
in
0 Cr,Misc.No.3052-M of 1994
0
to misappropriation of the amourlt on account
0 I
0 ::i::e:::0o:h:h~:::~:c:: : : :rt:::::· ~earn not
0
contract which was entered into j ,p~opriet"'.:~ .
9 of Saini Motors and parents of -t;he petitioner .
0 j
and the Bank, ai;ia. ~lso the pe.tiJione~s who were

0
guarantors, was opposed to publ~c policy and·
0
whether the case i.s of civil najre and relates
0
to the breach of the contract o~ whether there
0 . .
was any misappropriati~~ of the amount of the
0
ba:r.ik, because this is a·matter stiil to be
0
enquired into by the. ~nvestigat~ng .Agency. For
0 . . I
securing the int~rest of the Bank, a d.tre9tion
0
is hereby issued to the c_riie!·M~nager of the
0
Allahabad Bank to file statemenJI of account
0
showing as to what amount is du4 from the· tWo
0 j
firms. A copy of the said stat,ent under
0 registered cover shall also. be Jent to .~the
0
petitioner, who undertakes to ~l~ar the dues
0
within 30 days and further u:Q_~e~akes that
0
ti:.11 the time the payment is ·made, the FDRs· which
0
are lying deposited with the Bank as security
0
be ·not r~leased to him.
0 lI
Ac9ordinglv, petitioner· ~nd his brother,
0
Ashish Kumar, in the event of t,eir ~rrest ~n
0
FIR No.44 dated 10-3-1994 ~h~lljbe released on
0
bail on their fUrnishing person,l bonds t_o the
0
satisfaction of the Arresting Ojficer. The"
0
other c"!'ditiqns of their JoiniT, inves'tig~~on
0
0
n .....£>
•
-------·
0
0
0 ................. ~ ---·--·--=-=--_:.:::.===.-\
0
......~
0 f·
•.
0
....
'-· ti~
. .
... r -11-
;---..
0 :. ~:· 1··1 - -~\

0 Cr.Misc.No~4274 ~a ~)
i
of 199:4 · ine .
& . ~h ( 1'JIJtJ,•·-,.
0 Cr. Mi SC. N0. 4035 of· 1994 ·"'~·r• -sCha
1i)~
;cl!r,!iJi)
"" :; · ··
~0}01)
in j nuioa,.hc, • lar:tai:
0 Cr,M~sc,No,3052-M of 1994
0
0 in the presence of their counsel, as and when ''·
a required, and not leaving the
. I
· :ntry without
0 prior permission of this Court,: ~hall r~a.in
0 in this case as well. Incase any fresh case is
l
0 registered against them, atleast'a week's notice

)
-o under registered cover shall be'. g.iven to the
0
. .
petitioner/his bi:other ·~shish

I
be delivered to their counsel,_1Sh,R.K.Talwar,

rar.,. or__ s~all
0
0 Advocate, District Courts, LudJ-iaria. 1's re~ards
-0 the contention. of counsel for ~he petitioner fqr
0 taking appropriation action ag~inst the. po·l ice.
0 officials, on the allegations -~bat ~s~ish-:~ar

. . . + 24.2·.1994
was kept in illegal custod)'.'
. to f~<p.-
0 I .
2.3.1994 and that he was kept ~n police custody
0
·O despite the order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate I Ludhiana, remaridip.g him to jud:ic"i~l

0 I ..
custody~- and also that Promod ~ar, brot"tier of
0 •
. '
r
the petitioner, Shri Ali, Mukhliar Sl.ngb;dr.:l,yer
0
and petitioner's bpother's se~ant, and
0
peti tiorter' s brother-in-la~.:;.;.·w?re taken in
0
.:o custody by the police on the night of 7th March,
. ' .
0 1994, and hnar Kaur taken in 1stody on 8 .• 3 .1994,
.0 I find that these allegations require to be
0 probed into bec~use the State ~as vehemently
0 denied the same.
-I
(
Co~seqa.ently, keeping in view the
0
0 p~culiar fac:ts and cir·cumstp.n~s of thi~ ;·case
I
and considering that· serious· a.;l.lega_tions ~have.
0 l .
·r
. t •• .-:
·O been made against a very responsible poltce
0 offi,,;,~ no~ below tl>e rank of S.SoP. • 'I.· ant 0£

~.n
-)
r~ -- l
·I
0
'
0
0
0 ·<... -
';
ol -
!
. . . . . . . . . . . (I'
() -12-
e; Cr.Misc.No.4274 of 1994
&
in
·O Cr,Misc.No.3052-M of 1994
0 I
() the view that i t would be approprtate if sane ...

~=
D Judicial Officer is appointed as t1 Inquiry

--.._,(
Officer to go into these allegatitns and submi·t·'
B
·a report to this Court. kcordingty, the ·
~ District and Sessions Judge(Vigilr·nce),Haryana,
~
0 is hereby appointed as an Inquiry Officer to go
.J
into the aforesaid allegations pn suhnit 8:.
0 I
report to this. Co11rt within two m~nths frcm today •.
0
·su9-moto proceedings initiated, ~Ader the
0 l
Contenpt of Courts Act, . against Mi:- .Sumedh Singh .
'¢ . J . ..-
Saini, SSP, and Mr.Paramjit Singh~ SHO, shal1
0 I ..
remain in abeyance till ~he report is suhnitted ,··
.p
0 . by the learned District an~ Sessilns Judge.
(Vigilance) Hacyana. The s~curit,.provide? ~o the
~
petitioner is no more required and ,ther-efore·,
.
it
0 ~
is now ordered that the same sha111 be withdrawn

0
and :to this effect, . an intimatiod be sent to the
0
Inspector General o~ Police, . Cha!3j~igarh. The
0 I
case to c~eup after the receipt !of .report. 11
0.,.
0 On the yecy next day, i .e. on 16-3-199 4, ,Ashi sh K.un1~,
0 brotiter of Vined fumar, filed Criminal M1sc.Applicc:rl:.ion

! .
O· No.4035 of 1994, stating thus :-
0 11
1. That on 15-3-1994, the Fl'on'~le Mr.Ju-?tice
0
V .K.Jhanj i gran-t;:ed anticipatory 'Dail to Vined
0
i
Kumar in FIR No.22 da~ed 22-2-19~4: and Vinod
Cd_ I
l1. Kumar and Ashish Kumar in FIR ·N~t44 dated
0 J
)
10-3-1994. The B-0n 1 bre High Court also issued
l .
0 .
various other dire.c;::tions in
t
furtjer~nc.:e of \the· ,
0
orders of anticipatory bail. \ ,..
0 i. That after the aforesq:ia j~P:gment wasf L/:1.J}
~TL ~ jb; ~~,.);.::,i:.-~
'0
0
-. -
0
0 ':1 · -~ •''! ..
~ /\ '.&J
:·~-:~
. -~;
0 -,t'"
-13-
()
Cr .Misc.jNo.4274 of 1994
0
0 ·
&
Cr .Misc.'.No.4035 ·of. 1994
. in ·
Cr.Misc;No,3052-M of 1994
&r;. -~8~t;
fiifh ~!/·~
~ ~1-~
J
f!/1:)1...,
7
4
c .
., 'O' .-;,- ' l'.lfe,
~;,;//faa!J 4'':a~~
Q Jtb ~
·-pronounced in court, Sbri Vinod I<U ~ ar told his .
0 brothers Ashish }(Omar Parmodh I<Umac .while they
c were standing in the parking of th~ High Court
0 that he was going to Ludhiana to get the ashes
c of their deceased father which-hadj._not been
J
!' .
0 immersed at Haridw?.r.so far. VinoJ I<Umar informed
0 his brother that he ~as going witl s.s.sandhu·
a S.P. Police Ludhiana and th~y ~erj to wait fo~.
c him at Chandigarh. ~
0 3. That v1..,od lfum"" left for1 Iudhiana wlth .

0 Sh.S.S.Sandhµ, S.P. in Car No.PB-~OJ-76~4 (S;l~er
0 Grey Maruti) being driven by Vinoh I<Umar driver
1
0 Mukhtiar Singh. In the meanwhile )\shish. Ku~dr
c telephoned his'brother-in-law
.. .Shri Ashok·Kumar
. ~
0 son of Shri Lal Chand at Ludhiana to wait f;r

J
0 Vined ~ar at the cremation ground behind
j
~a
0 College._ Sh.Ashok Kumar thereaftjr, left his·

Q' house to wait for Sh.Vined KumarJ
0 4. That thereafter no informatton has been .. --
-0 receiV"ed about the whereabou-:t;::;bf1' either Sh .Vtnod
0 Kumar or his brother-in•'law Ashl:l Kumar, or· the
0 driver_Mukhtiar Singh. -
0 s. That the applicant has tJlephoned and
0 . ~
enquired from every conceivable· p_lace at Ludhiana
0
and Delhi but has failed to.rec~~ve any
: -
0 \
information regarding the whereabouts of

. the
-a Vined Kumar and Asho'K
J •
KUmar or· 1-'ltikhtiar Singh.
! .
0
0
6. That last night, Le. the night 9f
15-3-1994, a police party of Jdhiana pol~~~
;
-- ---···-· ... - --·----
b
0
o···
0 .-
l
f
0 ...
0 !,
o·· -14-
0
Cr .Misc.No.4274 of 1994
0 & ·1
0 in i
Cr.Mis?,No.3052-M of 1994
0
0 vi.sited the family house No.Bl/19'14 scaled
0 the walls and upon finding the horse locked •
0 "'to
The servant Chottu alias Rajesh
.I
was sl.eeping
0
0
::at::tr::~::a::th:s:e:~ the folice party but '
0 7. That it appears that ~he
I
po:I.ice at
0 Ludhiana at the orders of Sumesh Singh Saini
a s.s.1?. Sh.S.S.Sandhu_S.P. and 'PatamHt ·Singh
0 J
have kidnapped V~nod ~ar # Asho~ Kµmar and
0
Mukhtiai;:- Singh in retaliation fol ~he order~ of
0 this Hon'ble High Court dated 15J~-19?4· The
0 petitioner apprehends that the .. ajove: person~ .JllaY
~
0
have peen liqUidated.
B. · That the reprehensible

i
>.
ano. barbarous
conduct of the police officials at Ludhiana:under
0
the orders of Shrl. s.s .. Saini .s.s~P. tudhian.a
0
have exceeded all bounds of hum~itarian behaviour
0
·and amounts to a contempt o'.f this Hon 1 hle High·
0
Court orders. ...~;;; 1·
O'
0 9. That the p~titioner is, bringing these
0 facts to the notice of th~s Hon·rle High. Cc;iurt

0 so that the life of Vined RUmar Ashok Kumar and
0 Mukhtiar Singh may be saved. · ··

i
0 In view of the submissi1ns made ab9ve,
\
0 it is respectfully prayed that jhe ap~ropr~.ate
order/direction~ be issued to je: J'olice a~
Ludhiana and its senior functio~aries at

·O
·,o " .'
0
0 ·f!
~·
0 ~
J·.
-
i_, •
~
-15-
0
0 Cr .Misd.No.4274 of ·1p94
&
0 Cr.Misc.No.4035 of ~994
in ..
0 Cr.Misc,No,3052-M of }99~
0
_before this 1 F.on 1 b1.e High
. Court.
. .
0
It is, further prayed that police
0 I '
protection be provided to Shri· A~hish I<Umar, ·
0 . . r
· Parmod Kui:nar, Rajinder I<Umar ~md !family of
0
famil~.merobers
l
Ashok Kumar and also other of
0 11
Shri Vinod Kumar ;
0
0 Notice of the application was. glven to. t'H,.e Advocate
0 General,J?unj ab, whd appeared in. Court on _,~7~3-1994 ...
0 The learned Advocate General,Punjab, on ~he instructions
0 of Mr.s.s.SandhU, Superint~nde~t of ;ouJ:e,.i:..udhiana,who .
I
0 was present iri Court.,on that d.ate, si;:ate~ that Yi:nod· Kumar
0 had gone in car with Sb.Sandhu to Police .. Station Kotwa1i,
' ' I •.,
0 Ludhiana, at the request of Vined ·Kuma.i:- ~s Vinod Kumar

. l . . .
0 wanted to tell the .SHO the gist of the order pas-sed by
!
0 this Court atid also that he will be available for
0 investigation on·l9-3-1994 instead o~ 17F3-1994. He
0 further stated that after informing the rao, Vined Ko.mar
0 left the police station and thereafter ,sh.sandi1u left
0 the police static~. Mr.Ch~trath, A.G.~bjab, t~s,st~ted
0 that. Vined Kumar and his brother.,.in_:~;~ ,tshok Kumar ana
0 Mukhtiar Singh,drt~er, are not in cu~t~y of· the po~ice.
I
0 This 2:Pplica'tion was treated to be a Habeas Corpus

~
0 Petition and a direction was issued t~ the State o~

•.
0 Punjab through the Advocate General,Punj,ab, for ti:-acing
0 the missing persons. On 18-3-1994, mor~
l. t i me was sought
.
I
0 to search the aEores·~id three persons, Tnd at the request
a made b:i~ the learn~d .i!'>.dvocate General,Pulj ab, more time wa::•
0 given and :the case was adjourned to 21-7-1994. -I~ ~~.s.-~h~r
0 made. clear to the learned A.G.Punjcb that
i
no further·tim~
.. !
0 ·-
~(")~~~--'-~~~~-·-~~- -·--·-··--··--·- ·- - - .· - ·- ----- _?~:, j ~~ ;

.o
·0
0
0
0
(')
-16-
0 .....
&
0 Cr.Misc.No.4035 of· 1994
in
0 Cr.Misc.No.3052-M of 1994
0
in this reg.ar~ shall be given !'ffid·whateve~. the
0
0
possible means/efforts the State has to
l
mrke to trace
the a:f9resaid three persons, it shall makf. On 21-.3-1994,
0
0
report ~f Kultar Si~gh, S.P,_.Headquarters ra.s filed.
·rhe report was put into a sealed cover arl;d was ordered
0 I
tobe kept in the cu~tody of Mditiona\ Re"gistrar(Judicial).

0
Mr.Chatrath stated that within a very short Pt::r.iod, the
0
police would be able to ccme out with th.~ d~:tnite
.o information
.
w~th ~egard to the
.
whereabou~s·of
I
the
·O
missing persons. Mr.H.L.Sibal, Sr.Aa.voca1e, counsel for
0 Mr.Sumedh Singh Saini, S.S.P. flled Crirn·n~l Misc:
0
Application No.4274 of 1994, in which Mr Saini submi~~~d
)'.
0 j -
that he pe he·ard before any order is passed. ~fter hearinq
0 the learned counsel for the p~ties, ~he,.j~dgm~n;:· w~s -
·o rese.i;:ved for 24-3-1994. ! t was further ordered that
0 incase the State finds the missing persobs or h"as further
/ . ! -
0 to say anything in the matter. State .~ay·. :i,nform tne: Cour,t
0 by 2:.00 P.M. on that qate. . I
.
0 Today, Mr .Ashok Aggarwal, learner Mdition~l
0 Advocate-General,Punj ab, has filed a supplement?-IJ' report
S~~:~: I
0 of Kultar Singh,S.P.Headquarters, copy ~£-which has been
0 given to the counsel for Vinc;>d Kumar. n.the ~a~is.of
.o inv~stigation made by the police, he .ha stated that· f-
0 i
(a) Shri Vinod Kumar and Shri .Mµkhtiar Singh
0
0
were moving separately of ~ir own. free will
and were not il?- the cq.stody I: f the police.
0
(b) Shri Vinod Kumar/Shri Mukhti r Singh may
0
have gone to Dharamsala.
·o
tc) There was no clue ·whatsoever, about the i
0 J ~· 1 ::.
whereabouts of Shri Ashok ~·ru;, who -a~~3~reP.~1~r

0 ! ! . .·
i . . ~~.
~: .:.'=·
__.____.. ..
...
..n.~--'-~~~~-'=--'-
1
--·-·--· ·' . . i-·- .. -----· -· __ ..,:~ ~

0
0
0 -----·---·-----
·~·--@
0
0 ,,.\ .....
0 ·'
t· .11
-17-
fJi~~"•'
o- .
r
;:·~
Cr.Misc.No.4-274 of 1994 Gin.\ \~
in Cr .Misc,.~o.3052-M of· 1994
0 tf~
has. gone .into hi¢ling.
·:im ~
0 ff!g1: /71'r ·'t•»·
• '\• ·, o'i,:.~/~]l'.'l
0 (d) Shri ·Rajinder Walia is also missing since ~·il~Ji~'9,.!JJ".8.'i.·

"'rf,l~h ,,
and apparently is now hiding." ~
0
Nr ,Ashok Aggarwal,Mdl.A. •. G.Punjab, haSj also P.laced
l. ~-:
0
.0 on record ·a copy of D.o .. l•3tter from s.Chatto,adhyaya, Asstt •
·O Inspector Ge~eral of Police.~atiala and Lµdhij°a Range,
d aadressed to Sh.KPS Gill, Director General of ·r.olice,Punjab;

Chandigarh, detailing certain facts which_hav, come to light
after he made secret enquiries in the circums,at:ices of the case. ···
He has also st.ated that several clue.s have corqe ··to notice which
clearly indicate that the mis'si~g persons .havJI absconoec of

.
!
their own fr-ee will. This D.O. letter. has been '.put in a sealed
.-
cover, at the reques;t of Mr .Aggarwal.
0 -
O Mr.R.:S.Cheema,Sr.·Mvocate,counsel for >Vined I<Umar and
J .
O Ashish Kumar, contended that right from the .:d~y first, Vinod
0 Kumar had been alleging his liquidation at .thr hands C?f the
·O poiice cit Ludhiana. He made a prayex.-: that invTstigation of t~~is

O case ·be entrusted to the C,.;;B.I. In reply, l~irned A·~·~l'!Jab
and Mr.H.L.Sibal,_counsel for Mr.Saini, sta'.ted)that enquiry be

.o I ·
O entrusted to a committee of two or t'f:ree Insptctor- .~neralof
O Police, l?µnj ab; ·to unravel the truth. Mr .Siba1-_ a.id not favour"
O t:he entrusting of the case to the C.B.I. as:~·.a~corcUn51 t.d him,it

. ~
O would shake the confidence and the Government: in the law·
O enforcing and law-abiding poli.ce force. Mr.Sibal also stated
_O that Mr. Saini has nothing to do with the. case:. ·wt th req~rd to
I l . •
0 the allegation that Mr·.Saini 1 s sister was married to Narinder

I
O Saini, one of the proprietors C'f .M/s ~aini Motprs ,which had ende··~
0 into a d~vorce, h~ s~ated that i t was an incirent happened

almost 24 year::; back, and Mr.Saini has no 'hand in disappearance
.o 'l ·'
of these person~. !
0 i
.O Present is f case where three pers1ns have d~r·~ppt~f.e"!
O in mysterious circumstances anq are not tracjable despire: :a'!"~~
efforts made ·by the Sta~. Vide order da:t~d 15-.3-1994,v·f~"".1.~
.Jl~_,_~~~~~~~~~~~~~-LI____..:._~--- ~
0 .. -
~b-- --- ~- .:. _ - ~
0
0
0 :;:
n e ...
!j-,C l.- -18-
0 Crl.Misc.No.4274 of 1994
·& •
0 Cr .Mi'6c.No.4035 of :!.994
in
0 Cr.Misc.No.3052-M of 1994 l
0
0
, Kumar was all.owed antici:?;>atory bail in
which he was wanted by the police. He. as aiso allowed
f:th FIRs in
·1
0 the assistance of a counsel at t~e time· o.f investigatio~/

0 interrogation. :further, the police was :alsq di re·cted
0 not to arrest Vined Kumar· or Ashish Kum.ar in. any case
6 regil'?tered against them, without a prio~·. wee}:' s ·notice

. r
0 underi registered cover to them or to their.
j
counsel. The
. I
0 order was pronounced on. 15-3-1994 in the presence of
0 le . .ned Advocate General.Punjab, S .s.,satb1, ~ .P. (Ea stl ,

and Nachhattar Singh,D.S.P. They all were aware of the
0 ·i .. ,•
orders of this ,Court. It is very'diffiGUlt to accept-....... '
0 I
that Vinod Kumar who was already on bai1; would qo,on
0
0 his own volition,to Police Stat.ion I<otw,:li, Lu~hi~n~, ~o
apprise the s.s.o. of. the ..order of t;his jCo~t,. and :f'.or.
0
requesting him to interrogate him onty qn·19-3-1994,aft~~
0
he ·had_ immersed the ashes of his de.ceased-father, because
0
the s.P. Mr .s.s.:sand.hu had already acceqea to tHii.<S i:-eci,ue:;;:t
0
made by hirn.(Vinod Kumar) on 15-3-199.4. itjself ,after the
0 . I . .
pronouncement of the orcer. Though according to the·
0 I . . •.
repoi:t filed by Kult«r Singh;S.P.Head~,r-ters, which has

0
been kept in a sealed ·cover:~ Vinod ~m, was seen on..
0
the next day after he had ieft the poliqe station, but
0 '
at this stage, i t is very difficult to.Jomment -on this
0
0
report' In arry Other circumstanceS, ·~h1s ~rt woald
have accepted the request of Hr .Sibal for entrusting
0
0
the enquiry to two or three InsP,ector cJnerals .of ~olice,
Punjab, but allegations in this case have been made
0
against an s.s.P. of Ludhiana and other ,high-rank. poltCe..
0
officials. The!:'efore, it would not be appropriate to-
0 1
entrust the investigation to the Punjab ;Police,as
0 I r :
I
·-
0 . :"· : ·,
__n ·- i ,.,..:,·~..i:;;f~:
0
0
••/'
-19-
. it.'"'.
)" Cr.Misc.No.4274 of 1994
0 and cr.Misc.No.4035 of 1994
in Cr.Misc.No.3052-M 0£ 1994
0
sul:::rnitted by Mr.Sibal. In the circUmstances of this case#
0
:i: am inclined todireqt that the case be ref~rred itnf!led.iately
0 . I :t;.._.,
to the Central Bureau ·of Investigation(CBI) "for thorough and 1 •
0
detailed' investigation of the entire episod, Which led to'
0
the disa~pearance or aforesaid three person,. :i: am ~ot
0
e:xpressing my opinion on the meri'ts -of the case or say}..ng
0 I
j
that the police have acted in a partisan ma~ner or the
0
investigation of the case has not been dpne in a proper and
0
objective manner. It is onJ,y ..in the intere t of the State
0
that the investigation be entrusted to an i~dependent Age~cy
0
so that the truth may be unrcvelled. This b?.pomes all ~he
a - more essential when the allegatlfipn. is depriving of life and
0 . ':
liberty of a citizen at the .hands of the po.lJ;Lce without
0 I -
following the procedure as established. by La~~ Life arri
0
0
liberty of a citizen is paramount and the s±·-te is·uhder
a constitutional mandate to protect the same. The Court is
d equally under an obligation to safe-guard a .I ·protect
right of _an ·ind~:-..ridual as. and when ·the same

.
this
rs
i
thre,ate11ed.
0
Consequ~ntly, I direct that Registral(Juqicial)
0
s!·all forward all the' paper~ 0£ this case=;infludin~· the _/-<".
0
orders of this Court which were passed frcm \time to time·_... -
0 : ·' :
and also the sealed" covers containing t!i~~r.ebo~ts of

0
· Kultar Singh,·S.P.Headquarters, and D.O. letter fran
0 ' . ·... ...
r .
Sh.S.Chattopadhyaya to the Director General pf Police,
0 • . ·1
• l
Punjab, by· a writ of Mandamus to the D~rector, Central

0
Bureau of Investigati:on, to be____treat~d as ~n1 informati~n
0
of cognizable offence and to c~ence investfga~k>~ as ..
0
prescribed by the relevant provisionso.f the paae 'of Crirntnacl
0
Procedure.
0 .· 1 . :.
'l'he Irrspector Ge~eral of Police (O,rations) _;- . ~ ,
0
and Internal Secu.::ity)Punj"ab, who is inve_sti?9ti~g the·{:: ; ,;,
0
matter under the direct st:.per·.rision of Direc~or· Gen53ra~:··'.: ·~ . ·
0
~ : . : ~i·-~1i~~j~.:;~·
.Jl . 'i- ·. ./ _.;,;-~
0
0 . -
I
:_@
-~
I"' .
I
I
... _ ..._
-20- -._r-- -
....................
... .
.,~
0
Cr.Misc.• No.4274 of 1994
0 &
er .Misc.No.4035 of 1994
0 . in
Cr.Misc.No.3052-M o:E 1.994
0
0£ Police ('Int;elli_gence and Crime) Pµnja , shall i;enc'ler '~.
a:).l asst13'ta~ce -to the Central Bureau of :Investigatiori(CBI)
in this regard ..
I
The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner that
}
Sh.Sumedh Singh Saini,SSP,. S.S.Sandhu,S~'P.; Naphhattar
. I . I
Singh,DSP, Paramj.it Singh,SHO, and B.c.r~1ar~~SHO, be
p"-.ac.ed under sUSpE:l!nsion and they .be trar;ferred fran
Ludhiana, is not acce:i;>ted at thi_s stage j Incase th~-·
c. B •.:i:. finds tpat fair invest~gation isJpot possible
if -Che aforesaid police officer~ remainlposted at

Ludhiana, the C-.. B.I. shall be at itbert. to approa~h
thi? Cou~t for ob~aining necessary ·orde's in ·this
regard. As the C~B.I ...is going to iiiv:e~tigate the
entire ca·se, order dated 15-3-1994 to ·the· exteri"!: vi.de

which the Distrlct and "Sessions Judge (Vigilance)
I -
Haryana,
.
- I .
was 13:ppointed as _an Inquiry Officer to fo int~ :the
0 . I
allegation~ contained in Criminal .Mi:sc..Application
0
No.3633 of 1994, is hereby recalled. s.+.:..o,;,, ,proceeding,
0
initiated vide order dated 1~-3-1994:, ll:pder the Gon~e;!OPt
0
of Courts ..Act against Sh.Surnedh Sinql~ daini,SSP, and
.o "' I .
par arnj i t Singh, 'SID I shal 1 remain in ·-aber-~mce ti 11 .
0
completion. of in~ves~~~~9~. by the <=:entf"al B.ir.eau ·of
0 ._,' ~-.,(-. · ~) 1?1 1 °':-~ I
0 Investigation._ r.~~ ~~~1~ P~o~ rm.~r sha lJ.i no .. ·· ...-·
0 longer remain[~n'the proted.f~1e custody of st.-H.o. PoLi<:!e

• l.• • l .
', I . ...!"· I ;; IJ
:Stati,on,Secto \1"_17, Cha'f}c:i.ligaF,J;,._
' .,_
0
{_),.,___~ tJ k· ..
·~.., /J.
·O March 24,.1;4 ·"-.~-;;;;;:/
0 fia-v<J
0 - "0 ~· 'Cgrtifled fo be true Copy 1 ..
,,,:'.~-
0
\
Examiner Ju~~epartment
High Court of Punjao ~ Haryanz
0 :~ .. Chandigarh ;
I '
--r~~~
Criminal Misc. No. 4274of1994 {sJ
&
Criminal. Misc. No. 4035of1994
In
Criminal. Misc. No. 3052-M of 1994
Present: Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior. Advocate,

with Sarvshari Rajive Bhalla, Gupreet Singh
and M.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the Petitioner
Mr. G.K. Chatrath, Advocate General, Punjab
with Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab
for the State
Mr. S.S. Sandhu, SP, in person
Mr. H. L. Sibal, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for
Mr. Sumedh Singh, Saini, S.S.P. ·
On 17-3-1994, the Criminal Misc. No. 4035 of 1994 was

treated to be a Habeas Corpus Petition and a direction
On 17-3-1994, the criminal Misc .No. 4035 of 1994 was

treated to be a Hebeas corpus petition and a direction was issued to
the state of Punjab through the Advocate General , Punjab, all
possible mean at the disposal of the state be employed to trace Vinod
Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh, and they be produced in
Court on 18-3-1994, at 2 P.M. on 18-3-1994, in response to the
notice of the petition, S.S.Sandhu, Superintendent of police (East),
Ludhiana, filed his affidavit, In his affidavit, he explained as to how
Vinod Kumar had accompanied him to the police Station Division
No.l,Ludhiana, and from where Vinod Kumar along with his driver
left at about 8.15 P.M. On that date, the learned Advocate General,
Punjab, had sought more time to search the aforesaid three person,
and the on his request, more time was given and case was adjourned
to 21-3-1994. On 21-3-1994, affidavit of Kultar Singh, S. P.
Headquarters, was placed on record, detailing the efforts made by
the police to locate the missing persons. More time was sought.
Consequently, the case was adjourned for today.
It is necessary to state as to why the miscellaneous petition was

treated as Habeas Corpus Petition and why a direction was issued to
the State to trace the missing persons. It all started with the
registration of FIR No. 22 dated 22-2-1994 under Sections
406/420/465/120-B, I.P.C. registered at Police Station, Focal Point,
Ludhiana, on a complaint made by one J amail Singh, alleging
therein that M/s Saini Motors, dealers in Maruti cares, were selling
cars in premium. A raid was conducted by the police. Certain
.
documents were taken into possession. Apprehending arrest, the
proprietors of Mis Saini Motors, namely Meenakashi Saini,
Narinder Saini and Rajiv Saini, approached this court seeking
anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3059-M of
1994. This application came up for hearing before R.K. Nehru, J, on
28-2-1994, on which date, ad-interm bail wa allowed and notice was
issued to the State of Punjab for 7-3-1994. Criminal Misc.
Application No. 3052-M of 1994 was presented on 27-2-1994 before
the Hon'ble Chief Justice by Vinod Kumar, alleging harassment and
illegal detention by the Police of Police Station, Focal Point,
Ludhiana. The petition for hearing was entrusted to R.K. Nehru, J.
In the petition, Vinod Kumar alleged that his father, Rattn Singh and
mother, Amar Kaur, had deposited Rs. 24 lacs each with M/s Saini
Motors, payable to Maruti Udyog Limited in the year 1992-93. This
amount was paid through Allahabad Bank, Ludhiana, by taking a
loan from the said bank. When the premises of M/s Saini Motors
were raided, their books of accounts were taken away by the police
and since then they .have been harassing him and his family
@})
members. He further alleged that on 24-2-1994, the police raided the
residence of his father and removed certain files and documents and
also took along with them, his brother- Ashish Kumar. The police
did not have any warrant of arrest nor was Ashish Kumar wanted by
the police in any case or in the F .LR. The police wanted to know as
to why money was given to Mis Saini Motors. On 25-2-1994, which
was a holiday, an application was moved before the Duty Magistrate,
Ludhiana to seek the presence of Ashish Kumar before the Court .
. On this application, notice was issued for 26-2-1994. On 26-2-1994,
the police did not produce Ashish Kumar, and case was then fixed
for 27-2-1994. In the petition, Vinod Kumar further prayed that
necessary orders be passed so as to protect him from the illegal
detention that may be effected by the Ludhiana police and necessary
orders be passed, releasing Ashish Kumar, with a further direction
to the police that he and his family members be not harassed. On this
application, R.K. Nehru, J, issued notice to the State of Punjab
through Advocate General, Punjab, for 4-3-1994. In the meanwhile,
it was directed that incase Vinod Kumar is wanted in any case
registered at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, he be released on
bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. In the meanwhile, one
application was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ludhiana, by Sh. R.K. Talwar, Advocate, on behalf of Ashok Kumar
for production of Ashish Kumar. Though notice was issued to the
police for 26-2-1994, but on account of non-appearance, notice was
again issued for 27-2-1994. It was only on 28-2-1994 that
appearance was put in. On 1-3-1994, the police made a report to the
effect that police have neither arrested Ashish Kumar, nor the police
requires him in investigation of FIR No. 22. On 3-3-1994, Ashish
Kumar was produced before the Illaqa Magistrate. As per the case
of the State, the involvement of Ashish Kumar came to their
knowledge on 2-3-1994 when Krishan Kumar Manager of the
Allahabad Bank, gave statement, in which he had mentioned that
Ashish Kumar and his brother, Vinod Kumar, had taken loans of Rs.
62 lacs in the name of their father, Rattan Singh and mother, Amar
Kaur. According to the State, on the statement made by the manager,
Ashish Kumar was remanded to police custody for one day. Ashish
Kumar was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ludhiana, on 4-3-1994, and prayer of the State to remand him
further to police custody was declined and he was ordered to be
remanded to judicial custody. Despite the order of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ashish Kumar was not sent to the jail on the same day,
but was sent to Central Jail, Ludhiana, on the next day, i.e. 5-3-1994.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 3052-M of 1994 in which notice had
been issued for 4-3-1994, was again adjourned to 7-3-1994 as
counsel for the State stated that concerned 1.0. has not turned up and
secondly, the connected matter filed by proprietors of Mis Saini
Motors was fixed for 7-3-1994. Consequently, this Cr. Misc.
application was adjourned to 7-3-1994.
On 5-3-1994, Criminal Misc. Application No. 3546 of 1994

was put up at my residence under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief
Justice. Vinod Kumar, appeared with the application, in person, in
which he had stated that because of disputes between the S.S.P. of
Ludhiana, Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini and proprietors of Mis Saini
Motors, who are closely related, he has been dragged unnecessarily
and he apprehends that incase he visits Ludhiana without proper
police protection, he will be taken into custody despite the orders of
this Court and will be severely beaten up or even liquidate. He had
@
further stated that his father had expired on 5-3-1994, but because of
fear, he cannot go to Ludhiana, to perform the last rites of his father.
He had also mentioned as to how his brother Ashish Kumar was
into custody on 24-2-1994, but was produced only on 3-3-1994,
when he was remanded to police custody. As serious allegations
were leveled against Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini. S.S.P. Ludhiana, a
direction was issued to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh,
to provide adequate police protection to Vinod Kumar. The Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, was also directed to pass orders,
releasing Ashish Kumar on bail forthwith, so as to enable him to
perform the last rites of his deceased-father. Notice was also issued
to Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini, S.S.P. Ludhiana to be present in Court
on 9-3-1994, to answer the allegations made in the application. On
9-3-1994, Mr. Saini did not appear.
Another Criminal Misc. Application No. 3633of1994 dated

8-3-1994 was also put up before me by Vinod Kumar, in which he
stated that after performing the last rites of his father, he came to
Chandigarh along with two security officials provided by the
Chandigarh Police. He made a call to his residence at Ludhiana. His
wife picked up the telephone. On the telephones, he (petitioner)
heard her enquiring as to who was knocking at the door of her bed-
room, and thereafter, he heard shouts "we have come from police
station and in case you do not open the door, we will break down the
door of the bed-room. He had further alleged that over the telephone,
he could hear certain police officials saying that they want the
petitioner by all means, and also Ashish Kumar. They also asked as
to why the S.S.P. had been summoned to the High Court. They also
threatened to continue harassment and to physically eliminate the
@
petitioner, if they found him. Vinod Kumar had further alleged that
the police began to beat up all the male members and abuse the
ladies, and eventually took away Promod Kumar, brother of the
petitioner, Shri Ali, orderly of petitioner's brother-in-law, Mukhtiar
Singh, petitioner's driver and petitioner's brother's servant. Police
also searched the house of Vinod Kumar's brother-in-law's house,
who stood surely for bail for Ashish Kumar, and also took him away.
Two affidavits were also filed, one by Parmod Kumar son of Rattan
Singh and another by Amar Kaur widow of Rattan Singh, stating
therein as to how the police took them into custody and resided the
house of Rajinder Kumar, brother-in-law of the petitioner. They
further stated that they were released at 5.30 P.M. on 8-3-1994.
Since the allegations made in the application as well as the affidavit
were very serious in nature, and at that state, it appeared to the Court
that Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini S.S.P. Ludhiana, and Paramjit Singh,
SHO, Ludhiana, had committed contempt of this Court, a show-
cause notice was issued to them. Since Mr. Saini had not appeared
despite the order of this Court, bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.
10,000/- were issued for 15-3-1994, in order to secure his presence.
Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini, SsP presented a petition at the residence of
Additional Registrar (Judicial) which was entertained by the orders
of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. Sh. Saini presented the petition at my
residence on 11-3-1994, though it was a holiday. In his petition, he
stated that Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar are the persons who
indulge in cheating and forgery. They had taken loans of Rs. 62 lacs
each from the Bank, for selling maruti cars in black market. A
mention was made to FIR No. 44 date 10-3-1994 under Sections
406/120-B, IPC, P.S. Kotwali, Ludhiana, registered from Vinod
Kumar, two firm and M/S Saini Motors. A mention was also made
@
with regard to two cases, FIR No.326 dated 14-9-1980 under Section
7 of the Essential Act and FIR No.294 dated 9-5-1978 under Section
379/447, I.P.P.S. Division No.5 Ludhiana, registered against Vinod
Kumar. He further alleged that Vinod Kumar and his wife are
passport-holder and are likely to misuse the orders of this court by
fleeing from India. He further explained thar he was on leave and
had no knowledge of the order of this court vide which he had been
asked to appear on 9-3-1994. After return from leave on 9-3-1994,
he learnt about the order. He, thus, prayed that Vinod Kumar and
Ashish Kumar be allowed to be arrested for the purposes of
investigation of the case. Mr. Saini insisted upon an urgent order to
be passed on this application . As his insistence, notice was issued
to counsel for Vinod Kumar for the next day, i.e. 12-3-1994, which
was a holiday. Vinod Kumar along with his counsel, Shri R.S.
Cheema, Sr. Advocate, appeared on 12-3-1994 and prayed for time
to file reply to the application. The case was adjourned to 15-3-1994.
The prayer of Mr. Saini for taking into custody Vinod Kumar and
Ashish Kumar was not accepted at that stage. However, an
undertaking was taken from the counsel that Vinod Kumar and
Ashish Kumar will not leave Chandigarh till further orders. On 15-
3-1994, anticipatory bail was allowed to Vinod Kumar in FIR No.
22 dt. 22-2-1994 and FIR No. 44 dated 10-3-1994.The operative part
of the order is as under:-
"Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at

length, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the
relief of anticipatory bail. In· Crl. Misc. No. 3059-M of 1994.
the proprietors of Mis Saini Motors, the principal accused,
were granted anticipatory bail and, therefore, no exception
can be made in the case of petitioner. He deserves the same
treatment. Therefore, it is ordered that in the event of arrest of
petitioner, he will be released on bail on his furnishing
personal bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.
Petitioner shall join investigation as and when required by the
police. Petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of this court. The interrogation if any, shall be
made in the ·presence of counsel for the petitioner. Ashish
Kumar, brother of the petitioner, who is on bail in pursuance
of orders of this Court, shall remain on bail. Ashish Kumar
shall also join investigation as and when required by the
police and shall not leave the country without the prior
permission of this Court. The prayer of the State for taking
into custody the petitioner and his brother, Ashish Kumar is
declined. As for as FIR No. 44 dated 10.3.1994 is concerned,
I am of the view that complaint on the basis of which FIR No.
44 dated 10 .3 .1994 was registered is nothing but a repetition
of the statement of the Chief Manager recorded under Section
161 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 22. Though the counsel for the State
tried to draw distinction between the statement made under
section 161Cr.P.C. and FIR No. 44 dated 10.3.1994, but of
perusal of both I find that there is no material difference. The
allegations contained m the complaint relate to
misappropriation of the amount on account of breach of the
contract. At present, I am not going into the question as to
whether the contract which was entered into by proprietors of
Saini Motors and parents of the petitioner and the Bank, and
also the petitioners who were guarantors, was opposed to
public policy and whether the case is of civil nature and relates
to the breach of the contract or whether there was any
misappropriation of the amount of the bank, because this is a
. matter still to be enquired into by the Investigating Agency.
For securing the interest of the Bank, a direction is hereby
issued to the Chief Manager of the Allahabad Bank to file
statement of account showing as to what amount is due from
the two firms. A copy of the said statement under registered
cover shall also be sent to the petitioner, who undertakes to
clear the dues within 30 days and further undertakes that till
the time the payment is made, the FDRs which are lying
deposited with the Bank as security be not released to him.
Accordingly, petitioner and his brother, Ashish Kumar, in the

event of their arrest in FIR No. 44 dated 10.3.1994 shall be
released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The other conditions of
their joining investigation, in the presence of their counsel, as
and when required, and not leaving the country without prior
permission of this Court, shall remain in this case as well. In
case any fresh case is registered against them, at least a week's
notice under registered cover shall be given to the
petitioner/his brother, Ashish Kumar, or shall be delivered to
their counsel, Sh. R.K. Talwar, Advocate, District Courts,
Ludhiana. As regards the contention of counsel for the
petitioner for taking appropriate action against the police
officials, on the allegations that Ashish Kumar was kept in
illegal custody from 24.2.1994 to 2.3.1994 and that he· was
kept in police custody despite the order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ludhiana, remanding him to judicial custody, and
also that Promod Kumar, brother of the petitioner's brother
servant, and petitioner's brother-in-law, were taken in custody
by the police on the night of 7th March, 1994, and Amar Kaur
taken in custody on 8-3-1994, I find that these allegations
require to be probed into because the State has vehemently
denied the same.
Consequently, keeping in view the peculiar facts and

circumstances of this case and considering that serious
allegations have been made against a very responsible police
officer not below the rank of S.S.P. I am of the view that it
would be appropriate if some Judicial Officer is appointed as
an Inquiry Officer to go into these allegations and submit a
report to this Court. Accordingly, the District and Sessions
Judge (Vigilance) Haryana, is hereby appointed as an Inquiry
Officer to go into the aforesaid allegations and submit a report
to his Court with two months from today. Suo-moto
proceedings initiated, under the Contempt of Courts Act,
against Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini, SSP , and Mr. Paramjit
Singh, S_HO, shall remain in abeyance till the report is
submitted by the learned District and Sessions Judge
(Vigilance) Haryana. The security provided to the petitioner
is not more required and, therefore, it is now ordered that the
same shall be withdrawn, and to this effect, an intimation be
sent to the Inspector General or Police, Chandigarh. The case
to come up after the receipt of report."
On the very next day, i.e. on 16-3-1994, Ashish Kumar,

brother of Vinod Kumar, filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 4035
of 1994, stating thus:-
"1. That on 15.3.94 the Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Jhanji
granted anticipatory bail to Vinod Kumar in FIR No. 22 dated
22.2.94 and Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar in FIR No. 44
dated 10.3.1994. The Hon'ble High Court also issued various
other directions in furtherance of the order of anticipatory
bail.
That after the aforesaid judgement was pronounced in court
Shri Vinod Kumar told his brothers Ashish Kumar Parmodh Kumar while
they were standing in the parking of the High Court that he was going to
Ludhiana to get the ashes of their deceased father which had not been
immersed at Haridwar so far. Vinod Kumar informed his brother that he
was going with S.S. Sandhu S.P. Police Ludhiana and they were to wait for
him at Chandigarh.
That Vinod Kumar left for Ludhiana with Sh. S.S. Sandhu,
S.P. in Car No. PB-lOJ-7614 (Silver Grey Maruti) being driven by Vinod
Kumar driver Mukhtiar Singh. In the meanwhile Ashish Kumar telephoned
his brother-in-law Shri Ashok Kumar son of Shri Lal Chand at Ludhiana
to wait for Vinod Kumar at the cremation ground behind Arya College. Sh.
Ashok Kumar thereafter, left his house to wait for Sh. Vinod Kumar.
That thereafter no inforination has been received about the
whereabout of either Sh. Vinod Kumar or his brother-in-law Ashok Kumar,
or the driver Mukhtiar Singh.
That the applicant has telephoned and enquired form every
conceivable place at Ludhiana and Delhi but has failed to receive any
information regarding the whereabouts of the Vinod Kumar and Ashok
Kumar or Mukhtiar Singh.
That last night i.e. the night of 15.3.1994 a police party of Ludhiana
police visited the family house No. Bl/1974 scaled the walls and upon
finding the house locked. The servant Chottu alias Rajesh who was
sleeping on the roof of the house saw the police party but did not respond
out of fear.
That is appears that the police at Ludhiana at the orders of Sumedh
Singh Saini S.S.P. Sh. S.S. Sandhu S.P. and Paramjit Singh have kidnapped
Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar- and Mukhtiar Singh in retaliation for the
orders of this Hon'ble High Court dated 15.3.1994. The petitioner
apprehends that the above persons may have been liquidated.
That the reprehensible and barbarous conduct of the police officials
at Ludhiana under the orders of Shri S.S. Saini S.S.P. Ludhiana have
exceeded all bounds of humanitarian behavior and amounts to a contempt
of this Hon'ble High Court orders.
That the petitioner is bringing these facts, to the notice of this
Hon'ble High Court so that the life of Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar and
Mukhtiar Singh may be saved.
In view of the submission made above, it is respectfully prayed that
the appropriate order/directions be issued to the police at Ludhiana and its
senior functionaries at Chandigarh to present the aforesaid persons before
this Hon'ble High Court.
It is further prayed that police protection be provided to Shri Ashish
Kumar, Parmod Kumar, Rajinder Kumar and family of Ashok Kumar and
also other family members of Shri Vinod Kumar.
Notice of the application was given to the Advocate General,

Punjab, who appeared in Court on 17-3-1994. The learned Advocate
General, Punjab on instructions of Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Superintendent
of Police, Ludhiana, who was present in Court, on that date, stated
that Vinod Kumar had gone in car with Sh. Sandhu to Police Station
Kotwali, Ludhiana, at the request ofVinod Kumar as Vinod Kumar
wanted to tell the SHO the gist of the order passed by this Comi and
(g
also that he will be available for investigation on 19-3-1994 instead
of 17-3-1994. He further stated that after informing the SHO, Vinod
Kumar left the police station and thereafter, Sh. Sandhu left the
police station. Mr. Chatrath, A.G. Punjab, thus, stated that Vinod
Kumar and his brother-in-law, Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh,
driver, are not in custody of the police. This application was treated
to be a Habeas Corpus Petition and a direction was issued to the State
of Punjab through the Advocate General, Punjab, for tracing the
missing persons, On 18-3-1994, more time was sought to search the
aforesaid three persons, and at the request made be the learned
Advocate General, Punjab, more time was given and the case was
adjourned to 21-3-1994. It was there made clear to the learned A.G.
Punjab that no further time in this regard shall be given and whatever
the possible means/efforts the State has to make to trace the
aforesaid three persons, it shall make. on 21-3-1994, report ofKultar
Singh, S.P. Headquarters was filed. The report was put into a sealed
cover and was ordered to be kept in the custody of Additional
Registrar (Judicial). Mr. Chatrath stated that within a very short
period, the police would be able to come out with the definite
information with regard to the whereabouts of the missing person.
Mr. H.L. Sibal, Sr. Advocate, counsel for Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini,
S.S.P. filed Criminal Misc. Application No.4274of1994, in which
Mr. Saini submitted that he be heard before any order is passed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the judgment was
reserved for 24-3-1994. It was further ordered that incase the State
finds the missing persons or has further to say anything in the matter,
State may inform the Court by 2.00 P.M. on that date.
Today, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Additional Advocate-
General, Punjab, has filed a supplementary report of Kultar Singh,
S.P. Heqdquarters, copy of which has been given to the counsel for
Vinod Kumar, On the basis of investigation made by the police, he
has stated that:-
Shri Vinod Kumar and Shri Mukhtiar Singh were moving separately
of their own free will and were not in the custody of the police.
Shri Vinod Kumar/ Shri Mukhtiar Singh may have gone to
Dharamsala.
There was no clue whatsoever about the whereabouts of Shri Ashok
Kumar, who apparently has gone into hiding.
Shri Rajinder Walia is also missing since 17.3.94 and apparently is
now hiding."
.
Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Addl. A.G. Punjab, has also placed on
record a copy ofD.O. letter from S. Chattopadhyaya, Asst. Inspector
General of Police, Patiala and Ludhiana Range, addressed to Sh.
KPS Gill, Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh, detailing
certain facts which have come to light after he made secret enquiries
in the circumstances of the case. He has also stated that several clues·
have come to notice which clearly indicate that the missing persons
have absconded of their own free will. This D.O. letter has been put
in a sealed cover, at the request of Mr. Aggarwal.
Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate, counsel for Vinod Kumar

and Ashish Kumar, contended that right from the day first, Vinod
Kumar had been alleging his liquidation at the hands of the police at
Ludhiana. he made a prayer that investigation of this case be
entrusted to the C.B.I. in reply, learned A.G. Punjab and Mr. H.L.
@
Sibal, counsel for Mr. Saini, stated that enquiry be entrusted to a
committee of two or three Inspector General of police, Punjab, to
unravel the truth. Mr. Sibal did not favour the entrusting of the case
to the C.B.I as according to him, it would shake the confidence and
the government in the law enforcing and law -abiding Police force.
Mr. Sibal also stated that Mr. Saint has nothing to do with the case
With regard to all allegation that Mr. Saini 's Sister was married to
Narinder Saini, one of the Proprietors of Mis Saini Motors, Which
had ender into a divorce, he stated that it was an incident happened
almost 24 years back, and Mr. Saini has no hand in disappearance of
these persons.
Present is a case where three persons have disappearance in

mysterious circumstances and are not traceable despite all efforts
made by the State. Vide order dated 15-3-1994, Vinod Kumar was
allowed anticipatory bail in both FIRs in which he was wanted by
the police. He was also allowed the assistance of the counsel at the
time of investigation/ interrogation. Further, the police was also
directed not to arrest Vinod Kumar or Ashish Kumar in any case
registered against them, without a prior week's notice under
registered cover to them or to their counsel. The order was
pronounced on 15-3-1994 in the presence of learned Advocate
General, Punjab, S.S. Sandhu, S.P. (East), and Nachhattar Singh.
D.S.P. They all were aware of the orders of this court. It is very
difficult to accept that Vinod Kumar who was already on bail, would
go on his ownl volition, to Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana, to
apprise the S.H.O. of the order of this court, and for requesting him
to interrogate him only on 19-3-1994, after he had immersed the
ashes of his deceased-father, because the S.P. Mr. S.S. Sanhu had
already acceded to thi_s request made by him (Vinod Kumar) on 15-
3-1994 itself, after the pronouncement of the order. Though
according to the report filed by Kultar Singh, S.P. Headquarters,
which has been kept in a sealed cover, Vinod Kumar was seen on
the next day after he had left the police station, but at this stage, it is
very difficult to comment on this report. In any other circumstances,
this court would have accepted the request of Mr. Sibalfor entrusting
the enquiry to two or three Inspector General of Police, Punjab, but
allegations in this case have been made against as S.S.P. of Ludhiana
and other high-rank police officials. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate to entrust the investigation to the Punjab Police, as
submitted by Mr. Sibal. In the circumstances of this case. I am
inclined to direct that the case be referred immediately to the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for through and detailed investigation
of the entire episode which led to the disappearances of aforesaid
three persons. I am not expressing my opinion on the merits of the
case or saying that the police have acted in a partisan manner or the
investigation of the case has not been done in a propert and objective
manner. It is only in the interest of the State that the investigation be
entrusted to an independent Agency so that the truth may
beunrevelled. This becomes all the more essential when the
allegation is depriving of life and liberty of the citizen at the hands
of the police without following the procedure as established by Law.
Life ani liberty of the citizen is paramount and the State is under a
constitutional mandate to protect the same. The Court is equally
under an obligation to safe-guard and protect this right of an
individual as and when the same is threatened.
Consequently, I direct that Registrar (Judicial) shall f01ward
@
all the papers of this case, including the orders of this Court which
were passed from time to time and also the sealed covers containing
the reports ofKultar Singh, S.P. headquarters, and D.O. Letter from
Sh. S. Chattopadyhaya to the Director General of Police, Punjab, by
a writ of Mandamus to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation,
to be treated as an information of congnizable offence and to
commence investigation as prescribed by the relevant provisional of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Inspector General of Police (Operations) and Internal

Security, Punjab, who is investigating the matter under the direct
supervision of Director General, of Police (Intelligence and <;:rime)
Punjab, shall render all assistance to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) in this regard.
The prayer of the counsel for the petitioner that Sh. Sumedh
Singh Saini, SSP, S.S. Sandhu, S.P., Nachhattar Singh, DSP,
Paramjit Singh, SHO, and B.C. Tiwari, SHO, be placed under
suspension and they be transferred from Ludhiana, is not accepted
at this stage. Incase the C.B.I. finds that fair investigation is not
possible if the aforesaid police officers remain posted at Ludhiana,
the C.B.I. shall be at liberty to approach this court for obtaining
necessary orders in this regard. As the C.B.I. is going to investigate
the entire case, order dated 15-3-1994 to the extent vide which the
District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana, was appointed a
an Inquiry Officer to go into the allegations contained in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 3633 of 1994, is hereby recalled. Suo-moto
proceedings initiated vide order dated 15-3-1994, under the
Contempt of Courts Act against Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini, SSP, and
@
Paramjit Singh, SHO, shall remain in abeyance till completion of
investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Ashish Kumar
and Parmod Kumar shall no longer remain in the protective custody
of S.H.O. Police Station, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
Order Dasti
March, 24, 1994 V.K. Jhanji
Judge
:r ~~t '17l tr:;:-q v~· m::fr:U - ,, ~ ~·._, r-, t :"'f \J.\ :
D~Ie ~nd tlr.:i.e cf oo:urrcnce '24', 2., l Q94 to 15 • 3 .1994 ' · ,: ·.. '.:; '~;~ l ,\'
·1:i\t.'i'fPin\5'11 _'$i 21Tin>r :"flf •.1lt. 'i\!f,Mdl.

:-::i."''" of;;:;mnt:i.rrvrn• .,~ ...1., 1m:,,, 1
. "' . . .
Registrar Judic:i:.;:il Hig
• .( · • , ) • h. e
ourt
. . of ~rij ab and
,_,; 1<.a<ithe'' · · · ~. _Haryana, Chandigarh.
1
" "'~
120-B I.rD R/w
36s nc
~1\~.;:rt·tt1 '·F{ :1i;:;- ~~r~--~~rt
N.}l-A:nf. :m.<l Zidctrz%· vi ~he <\CC:..tie.d ?olice Officials of Ludhiana and others.
"; . i\ -·······~ .. :"·,....·~'". · - · ._.. ....... __ ............... ~-.-..- .... - · · · - · · j

~-\
.t·~·· '
{2)-.............. , ... :..·.... _...... _...a-·-·········· ......... ,. ......... !
*••• ·-···~ '.,.,. ................ , .••••• ,. ... .-..- ................ ,.

t
, ..., \ \ ,:'\ {3) f I • ~ •· <t Ii .. '.f- • _; • l o ! l • • " "' • • .._.,r. ~ * • • • • • • ..
11 & . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 ,._ • • ._ .. ' "
"' a ~ 'lo • o ti • • " • <o. • . • • ' . ; ' ... ~.·:• ' 1t . . . !>~II • ..... • " .. .,, ... ••• .. • "' " • • :t • •
.': ·.. ; u-.

~ ··:rj .
G'.frt mt. ~r f%-:n:q Regular case registered. ,.,¥: ~"'-·~\~~,-. l>n
~-\qion ta?..~'l~ .. ~
,1,,,ultl ma·JH·:r Shri D ._p .~Sing}6 DSP/CB I /New Delhi.

IW\'c:~tig::.ring: ' Otli::ei'", .....
. ~:
,.>"J''..,
~1/lnformat!on
' . ~ .!
?unjab -ind Haryaria High Court at Chandig.arh· passed an order on
15.?.9~ in Crl. Misc. No. 3824 of 1994, Crl. Misc. No. 3633 of 1994
nd er. :-.!.:'..sc .. tio,. 3546 0£ 1994 in Cr1. Misc. No. 3052-M of 1994 .
anting ant:i.cipa.tory bail to Vincx:l Kumar in .FJR No. 22 Dt. 22.2.94~ '
.=B .?0cal Point Ludhiana and Vinod Kumar and Ashis):). Kumar in FlR No ..
44 :::t. i.C • 3 .94 1?S Kotv'ali Ludhiana registered:'aga.1'ii'st them. While
d.1.s'?:::ising of t;-:e aforesaid petitions vide a t>ingle order, wherein
it. wv.s al.legi::,d th::tt A..Shish Kumar. was .lj:ept: in' :·.i,llegal ·custody from
2·~.2.94 -;;:0·2.1:,94 and that i:le was,kept· in.the, police custody despite'
tr:'' :::::i-s-::s ·'.)f the Chief Judicial Magistrate',,' r,Udhiana, remanding him
t 8 :•1dicial ::ustody and also that Promod Kumar, bnother of petitioner
Sh:::-J. ;',li, 3hri JliiUkhtiar Singh, petitioner•s brothets 1 servant and
~H~r{:P11'i-:...t.,';fr,,_.;ffo.~;:!/7~~-1~t-fr·50--~600 ~o I
~.J~:--tTii;;i ~·~;( .·-·?..IC .B. ! ::9 ....- 1 1;~·(,:.go ..... "6lltl liks.
\
i
b~,..___,,,,,........................................--------------------------~--···--~------------~
, V-) 1 - !)~
':J'3t:'.,ti'.Sn2r' s br0 ther-1n.-law, were taken in pol.i
by ':'he police on the night qf 7th Marc~~. ·
tak•=n i::t:::: custody on 8.3 .94, the High C:.
these h Ue;ations be pr0 bed by the Dist~
JUd~."t'4i> ("'li.<]ilance), rtaryana.. ... \:_; __, ,,....,,:·~~'(";.:
2• 3 ~fo ~ the· aforesaid inquiry could start, .Shri

.:..Si:Lsr: ;.;:u.,.r;iar ,. brother of Vinod .1(umar, f;i..1ed er .. Misc ..
~·:). ·i,035 Of 1994 in er. Misc. No.$052-M of 1994 in the Jii9h
_:)u:ct alleging therein that the Police officials of Distt;
:C.Udt.iarv:< had. kidnapped Vinod· KUrna,r, A.shish Kumar and Mukhtiar
3in•:::h in retaliation to the order·,passed by the High court
on is.3.94 ;ranting anticipatory bail'to,Vinod l<urnar ~4
c-thers~ ..
3. The :-iigh Court, after taking into consideration· the
affida1rit filed by Ashish Kumar and the counter a.ffidavi.._s
fileC. by ?o.:.ice officials, has, inter-alia, p<:lssed tne t....,.i:..1.ow-
inq ord•:;r:
,. rn the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to

direct that the case lne·-referred immediately to
the CBI for thorough and detailed investigation
of the entire episode which led to the disappearance
cf a.fores.aid three persons."
4• ':''":e :-ton' ble Hioh court vide the sa-id order dateC1
24 ..2.94: r':called its"_order dated 15.3.9·4 in respect of
inquir·,· :~~:> :::e conducted by Distt. & Session Judge (Vig.,),
Har:c:z.na '1'1d directed the ::BI to take up investi9at1on into
·~he allegation·of illegal confinement etc. of Pramod.Kumar
::.nd ::it hers· .a. t.. the hands :or· the· Llidhiana Poli Ce. ··
,, . The aforesaio facts. disclose :the commission of,,offences

puni.she.ble U/s. 120-0 IEC r/w S~c. 342 and 365 and Section
342. and 3 65 :UC.
; c"" / . . ' •. !_ ~. «~· ~ ! ;.
1.. ~ol~Reg1stf'ar~J'.udici~l) ,Punjab &'ff~ryrana H:ig~ court,

C.n2nc.igarh :w.• r.t.,,his letter No., Cr.Misc. 4274/4035/M
3052 M/9.4. dt:."29.3'~94. . ··' .
..
. ! ~
Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiat,ia.
4 . . i).i:--ec.~or (V lg.), DP&T, tJevr Delhi.
_. Jt. Secy. (CS) 1 !~, Govt. of Ind:i.a, New Delhi.
6. :-tome Secretary, Govt. of Pllnjab, Chandigarh.
;
8~ Sh::-:L ;).f'. Singh, DSP/-.'.;BI/New Delhi.
r
~~·~
sul?DT. OF 1?0LICE
CBI:SIC. II:NEW DELHI 0
ll.....---------------------------.·~~----·-·"·
-rr< ti a ~'1 fB.b Gt>Pj>
~:~P-···2-.
DEL-HI SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISITh$N1'
CBIISP$/SlC-II/NewDell:li Bi·anch
FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
Grime No. RC 2(S)/94-SilJ.V/SIC.II

5
:Qate and fone ofrepon : HL04.94 (1810 Hrs,)
Place of occurrence with State: Ludniana (Punjab) Chandigarh (U.T)
Date and time of occurrence : 24.2.1994 to 15.3.1994
Name of complainant or
Infonnanant : Addl. Registrar (Judicial) High Court
Of Punjab m1d Haryana, Chandigarh
Offence L?Q::J3..!P~~Rlw Sgc:,_3:;1:2.and.3,65JPC ,

Sec. 342 and 365 IPC
Name and address of the accused: Police officials of Delhi and others
Action taken Regular case registered
Investigating officer Shri D.P. Si11ghDSP!CBliNew Delhi
Information
Punjab and HaryanaHigh Court at Chandigarh passed an order
on 15.6.94 in Cr!. Misc. No. 1824 of 1994, CrL Misc. No. 3633 of
1994 and Cr. Misc. No. 9546of1994 in CrJ. Misc. No. 8052of1994
granting anticipatory bail to Vinod Kumar·in FIR No. 22 Dt. 22.2.94,

No.44 Dt 1.0.6~94 _ _ _ _ _ _ _Ludhiana registered against
them. While disposing of the aforesaid petitions vide a single order,
\vherein. it··· ""£ts a.11,e·. ged that. shish Kumar was kept in illegal custody
A·
-~.,.Jltft..-a"'~
froni'"'H':'94~to. 2. 91 and that he was kept in the police custody
despite the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana,
remanding him to judicial custody and also that .Promod Ku:inar,
brother of petitionet Shri Ali, Shri Mukhtiar Singh, petitioner's
brothers' servant and petitioner's brother-in-law, were talcen in police
custody by the police 011 the night of 7th March 1994 and Amar Kaur
taken into custody on 8.3.94. The High Couit directed that these
allegations be probed by the Distt and Session's Judge (Vigilance),
Haryana.
2. Before the aforesaid inquiry could start, Shri Ashish Kumar,
brother of Vinod Kumar, filed Cr. Misc. No. 4085 of 1994 in Cr.
l
i
Misc. No. 3052-M.of 1994 in the High Court alleging therein that the
police officials of the Distt. Ludhiana had kidnapped Vinod Kumar,
Asish Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh in retaJiatjon to the order passed by
the High Court on 15.3.94 granting anticipatory bail to Vinod Kumar
and others.
3. The High Cmni; after taking into consideration the affidavit
filed by Ashish Kumar and the counter affidavits filed by Police
officials, has, inter-alia, passed the following order :-

"In the circumstances of the case, I am inclined to direct that
the case be refened immediately to the CBI for tb:ot"pugh and
detailed investigation of the entire episode which led to the
disappearance of aforesaid three persons."
4. The Hon'ble High Court vide the said order dated

·'1
24~9tl rcca11ed its order dated 16~.94 in respect of inquiry to be

l'
conducted by DistL & Session Judge (Vig.) Haryana .and directed
theCB.l to take up investigation into the allegation of illegal
confinement etc. of Pramod Kumar and others at the hands of the
LudhiMa Police.
5. The aforesaid facts disclose the commission of offences
punishable u/s 120-B IPC riw Sec. 342 and 365 fl!ldS<::cticm.342 and.
365 IPC.
6. A regular case is, therefore, registered and entrusted to Shri
D.P. Singh, Dy. Supdt. of Police, CBI, Sec. 11, New Delhi
Sd/-
SUPDT. OF POLICE
CBI:SIC.II:NEW DELfl.J
Copy to:
. J. Addl. Registrar (Judicial) Punjab & Haryana High Court,
Chandigarh vv.r. to his letter No. Cr.
IV1isc.4274/4035/M/80521VV94dt. 29.8.94
Copy of f?i. Copy/

/'
' \.. /'
Exa~il pr ·
tlellii High ""~yft
2. Chief Judiciall\fagistrate, Ludhiana
3. DIG:CBI:SJC.II:NEW DELHI
4; Director (V.ig.) DP&T, New Delhi
5. Jt. Secy (CS), tvfHA, Govt. oflndia, New Delhi
6. Home Secretary, Gov1. ofPunjab, Chandigru:h
7. DGP, Punjab, Chandigarh
8. Shri D.P. Singh, PSP/CBI/New Delhi.
Sd/-
SUPDT. OF POLICE
CRI:SIC.U;NEW DELHI
0
0
0
-- ~. .\.• ·1:·
..
o·
0
0
0
0
' i. . .
0
0
,I
,..1
V..Ll~OJJ KOl.f.nd.
v/s
T ~titioner ..
0 I'·
'. ... I ..
0 scat.e' 01' :eunjab •.
~e·spondent ~
. .
. .. . . . \ ' ... .
0 .aPPLl~lON
. •
under;
I
seption.~82,cr.?.G.
. • . ·"'
?!' ••••:.. •'

0 for seeking ~ecti0n~ :: ::' ··
. ' .
0 I --- i ;
0 f~~vr rl.ilSP.i!Nl!FULLY SliOW.Efli;· ·. "l.1·.. ~\t ....·
0 I, . 'i ---------·~·=----_.!.-.~;~.5-;.c----
_;,.----• -
rJ: ·---···rps....__.... ,, ..... -'.
0 J·
\
1-
~
... · ..
..... ~: .. ·
J· . :· .·.
J,.~•: :~.
....,,
O· .......
""' I ·~
.~
; ..-.. ;::·::.:'\!]:
0
0
·.1.
0 • • • .J.
0 ..' . ·.
0
0
0
0
0 L. . .
0 . ... • ~
• :~ •'-I~.
! •• .1.
• :f . '. t'i;. • ~
r' '
.
0
0
\ '
~ .....
0 =--·~i-:---------
-o -- ---
0
0 •
. .. ,~_--::~0"
0 . ·r·;;:.,._,..-·
0 •.
. -- ....,... , ..
..... '!
'.·..
Present: Mr .Ariupam Gupta,, Advocate··

for. the appl~cant· ·· · ---,· ···.-:. "·
• • .# .. ••
--..-~~·· ...
Mr.Rajive
I
3halJ.a .. · Advo!=at
. •
•
! •
Mr .M. L .Sarin.. A .G .P.uri'J~~ · ·Jiih : .-; .:: . ~ .. · .._. /
Mr .s .K.Bhanot .. DAG ·Pun!j s . ?' . 1 •• ,.·
Mr.R.K.Handa» ~dv9~~t~: ·':·:~-!-'·: .: ··:: ;. '·: . ;;{;:;·

forCBI. 1···.1 :.:-:' ·, .
.. .
0
0 ~- '
0
0
b
0
0
01
0. J
0
,. f
'
~
I
I
0 .. f
'! ..
I
I
_ .
0
0 I
0
0
II~
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
___,...,
I _______------
................
. ,.
0
o- .
. I "
0 -
1·o ........ :;- --~~- -- .~
··: •• • ·~-i •: t
I
·1.1.
0
I •
/?';>', ' - "
0
' .
() -2-
.o I\
cr.Misc.No.217-7Ji of 1995 .in
0 cr.Misc.No.209070£ 1995
in. cr.Mis.o.No.3052-i1 of i994
0
0 '"-..
c 28-2-1994 tha~ the Chief Jud1cia~ r· gistrate,

. ..
~:
i:,
Ludhiana, directed the p'olice to s nd ·a rep9rt '"
.P ," . ·;! '
. by l-3. 7 1994. Report was filed on yehal£ of
Q
.
s .H .o. P .s . Focal Po.int. Ludhiana ...tnat Ashi·sh
[ . Kumar.--~
0
I ·'
.I . .
Hovievert o~ 3-3~1994,
n was not in their custody.
6
0
Ashish Kumar was produced in·the cow:-t of·Chief
Judi cia 1 «ag is tr ate , Lud~iana.
same very F.I.P.. in which the pqlire· had stated ·that
as •t accused in £he·
0
Q Ashish Kumar WeS not in their cu~t.fdy. Since ~:J?,.e:·
c allegat.ions made by the petitioner! were w~ry ser~'ous '
q. in nature and deserved t~ be probeh into and als~- ·' .. _ -

_!{)
that petitioner had sought _protect4on, a dire~t~on
was ~i s s- u·e d to "the Inspector beneral of ;Pol,i-~~-'
0
Chandigarh to provide adeq·u~te· p(,1kde protec~io~·. . -
0
0 I ·with an advance .information to ~hJ nolice ·author~ti5
l at Ludhlana that order o~ this cok~ whe~~bY,:- --.'Tr,-
0
0
anticipatOry bail ~as allowed by +!'·Nehru_.J(.be' ·•
strictly followed and no departure ~~ ·
0
~"
0
~ :be made. The _Chief Judicial ~gistrate ,L~hia;,a......
was directed to- pass orders ,re le i.hg Ashish:. Kumar
DI
0
on bail on his furnishing pers~n I
bonds in t~~-·
0 sum 0£ Rs.10,000/-. Mr.s.s.sainit S.S.P.• Lu~-~ia·na
~as asked to be present in Court ~n 9-3-199~ ~o
0 . I. ,
(] answer the allegations made in the ·petition.:
. . I :
Desp:i.te order dated 5-3-l 994. Mr•? .-s .Saini w_as
0
0 not present ·in court on .9-3-1994.! ~he .Assis'.~_ant, _____ ·
. I-=~ r ~·· i · i
Advocate General.Punjab, on the :in::it"ruct.ion~· ·o.f:'i :.
Q
. , :
Mr.s.s.sandhu. s.P·.(Cit.y) Ludhiah.f.),~.~e _st~~R1.i
-· i tA:: _· , r~ ..i\·f.:\5t.
..£
0 i . . l_.:1 ., . .
0
I
I that· Mr .s .s .s~ini ,SSP. hap. pr~ce~~ed' on{~ >•(. I , *..'1':1:

..
I
. .} ~~-~r~l1~~~
0 I
-
n f,,.:.,_
I
()
-=-----=----------
0
10 .,......
0 ~ ·- , .. ,... .... "'~.· ~..::-...,.-X".,'""~:~,___...,,,..,.
r:
0
.t>
I
~··
I
~.
l
t
i
ts.
i,,&,
.
0 -3-
o~
0 ., ~~--c,·£>,. .,_r ~~I
,., -~'r.>::.-.,'-.. -
cr.Misc.21711 of 1995 in 1','"t( ''\,;
cr.Misc.No.20907 of 1995 ·~
0 in cr.Misc.No.3052-M of 1994
•
1
'""~"'... ,..
c.;.,i.t._
••
,
f>',
o
.!
. , ...
I
i
'>-,;,, ·~
e . the a:fternoon of 6-3 -1994; In the l
~e . nwhil~ ~ ~
··¥•• ...,
:~.:
0
another application d?ted 8-3-1994 also been ,.
0
filed on which notice had been issue for 9-3-1~~4
0 ~-··
in which Vinod Ku~ar had subm:i.tted t at after

0 . I . . ---:·""'"
c performing t~ la~t rites of hi~ ~a~1e~ when he · . . ·1
came to C'tlandigarh along ~ith two .si~ity-guar~s !
0
provided by t~e Chandigarh Police. h made a call I
0
to his reside no~ at Ludhiana on: w~i · he hame to f
0 l -J
kno'W that in his absence the nolice
.t:' .
):lad raided
• 1. .
. .J
0
his house! ~ bea~ up all_ male: .. rciembersl and to<;>k z:way - )
c Promod K~ ,brocher "of'Vihod K;,,...:J Sh.A;i '..0r~~"~¥::J
0
,9
0
:::::.r~:i::t::-::;:"~":1:~:i:o:~~~:~
servant. ~ajinder ·son of sohan__ ~al J::i~ot~r-"i~~-~~:~f:.
o·
ta~.n a~yli tt.o-:~; ·
of Vinod Kumar• who had stood suret for the bail l·~ ·
0
of Ashish Kwnar was a.lso
~ 0-
~-;~;;.J
a=~~-~~~
~- -
:e
:::i:~::t~::~ v::::::-~::ttoa:::1::J··
in nature that, it appeared .to t~e c~6rt~:~.$~~~}'.·'
0 Singh saini,sJP,Ludhiana an~ the o~£~cers :,wor~n~jl-\
0
under him at Ludhiana had no ~e~p~1~. :for t:he ~rd~~::·.:·
0 I of this Court. Therefore,, this-Co.rt issued ; .. ·1-~,·
0
sho>11-cause notice to .Mr .sumedh Singh ~~.ini ,ssiP, '.,::;.
-0 ,, \.. I •' !,· •
I a~d Paramjit Singh,;;:-tO,Ludhiana_ aslt~ f . wh;r t~e:y

0
be not proceeded ag2inst under the cont~mpt. ~~~,
0 I !
Courts Act. Since Hr.Saini had, no .appea·red:~rt" :
0 '• . i ;
response~· fP order 0:£: ttµs court, b ila.ble wai:fra·n~
() ~. : ~ "it
0
0
~:::=~£ ~::~:::~::~~,~~ ~:.a ~: jiCTt~
on 11-3-1994, Mr..su.rnedh, ingp.. s~.:Lq. >;L
0
_J)____ -----' '-!;:'. . •: ],;,.,.,_
0
-o ·-
~
0
-:4-·
0 ~
1...t:J
0 cr • .Mis.c.21771 of 1995 in
~ cr.Hisc·.20907 of 1995
0 in Cr.Hise .3052-M of 1994
0
0
0 ' state<; that Vined Kumar may be allowed to be .arrestee
~~,
0 in cf.1.se registered against him. Praye was not .acq-epte[
0 and the matter was adjourned to 15-'3-l ~~. On 1.5·-;·:~4 • ·\
0 anticipator~ bail earl~er grantea to v·nod Kumar

'
'
0- in case FIR No.22/22-2-19.~4 was con£·1rt··d·. ~shish Kumar

. . .,
0 and Vinod Kumar were als;) allowed.anti 'patory bail <
0 in case.FIR No.44 dated l0-·3-19~4._ In vltiew· qf serio_us · ·i

0 alle'gations regarding illegal cust:ody o Asliish Kumar -·~
0 from 24-2-1994 to 2-3-1994; keeping him ~n·po~ice; J

0
0
custody despite the order of the Court
to judicial custody and f urth.;r i11-6gO:l

cu'stody Promod Kumar,sh • .'\li,Muk~tiar
emanding h.ill"!
·i takinQ ~~to ~ ·'

s~ .. gh,Vinod K.uma~
·.: /
I
0
0 brother's servant and Vinod Kumar's bro._l!er-in.;..la\';,:~-~cf
~ .
J
;
q Rajinder. this court app:-,inted DJ.strict and sess:i6ns ' f..

. . . .. . . . . . . "i.-
0 Jud ge (Vigilance) Haryana to go into the a·llega~~?~s ':1>
0 and submit his report to the High 'Court within twd~ .. ·, ..
·- - . -T~·
. . . ~. ·. -~1.
0 months. The contempt proceedings ini~ia E¥l-· against;; _ . ·;...l"
: I \
.0 sumedh Singh Saini,s1P, end Paramjit singh;sHo. were. \
. . i ·- ; ~ ' ·•
0' ;<.;pt in abeyance ·til 1 recdipt of rep9rt I~:.rorri the ;__ ... .--~-t
i . . ·1:--
0 District and sess.ions Ju~ge(Vigilanc:)Hr:iy_ana._ The,: .. , ~
0 seaur:it¥ earlier provided to Vinod KUffia by l

ii
0 chaadigarh Police un•:ier .')rders of "this . o-urt:. was
0 ordered to be withdrnwn i'l.nd an· 1ntimati n~ to this

.--t.
,. -~
0 effect was sent to I.G.Police·,Chandiga.r ·'On the v~r'f~;
.. i
~~
0 next day. i.e. on 16-3-1994. Ashish r<uma f.iled · :
0 Crl .Misc.No.4035 of 1994, s,:=.ati.ng· that

~
iJ retaliation
I "•, ~ ~f
LJ·
0 Of orders granting anticl~atory ba.ir~.by t~-~s Coi.lrtk~~. i~
' . i .' ,,t.·~
·.
0. ::x>lice at L·udhia11a und·er the orders ·of uinedh ~irigh_:.:-.;.rt;:
0 saini,ssP, ss Sandhu, s?; .cmd Par~ji.t ·,sibri

have ;;-r Jk;
. · ! -. · ~- ·,. i-fll'' v,,V·
.
kidnapped Vinod :Kumar.Ash •k Kumar and ·Muk{i:t~ar, ·::s~rf.,."''.Jf:#.
0 . ' I ' I:. ·:. .;'. ·•:';,'. Y,:/,;i'::.
0 ~~~-~~~prehended tha,t>.e~ OO~PiJi'

~l'j__
·~T
~ 0
~ .. · ....
\.
-5:-
0
0 er.Misc.21771 ~£ 1995 in
cr.Misc.No.20907 of 1995
0 in cr.Misc.3052-M of 1994
0 Notice of the application was given

0 General.Punjab. ·Mr.G.K.Chatrath •. th~ ! hen· Advocate
0 Ge~er~l.Punjab. in response to. notic;:eJ appeared and
0 stated that the said persons are. not l . .custo"ldy~ of the \ '.~..
() ,police. This application was treated ~ Habeas Corpus
0 Petition and a direction was. issued' to·j·the state of
Q_. Pun~ab through Advocate Ge~eral,P~~jabt ~or tracing out

0 the miss'ing persons. Thereafter. tb~ fa~e .was· adj~~rned
0 from ·time to time at the request of ,the state. ·on ·
0 ·· 21-3·~1994,' report of one Kultar Sin9h.f P,H€ad;,_uart~rs
(] was ~iled~ since the 9tate.with.~he ~l~~e fo~ce, at
0 its 9omrnand had failed t".;l. ~tra~e out. th! ~issing ~p~rso~~
() and was also not.in a position to. proY-de. satisfac~ory
.0
:'
answ(3rs to the queries ;-'Ut
.
by
. I
the _courif:~ :·I d~cidecl-' J:;o .
. ·--.,.J
0 entr?st the matter to the Central ~ur~j\~!of · _. \" ;~~·
O , Invettigation for t.1-i~ro>Jgh and :~et~~le inve~t·~gafi;n~J
O ·~· The Jnquiry which was earlier. entruste. to the· Di.."str.iJ
O and ~essions Judge(Vigilance) Haryan.a, wc;i.s w.:i:t::~~~~~:,\(_

0 The bvestigatio~ had be•n eutrlls~~ t ~he c.B.ri\,·.'1f ·
·O with\ the expectation that keepj,ng irl v · e~ the , <':.
. .. .. . ·i· ;).
O alle~ations made .against top ·police 'offi?ials );if ~h~"~·il·~,
. l ·; 1· :.
O State, it would act with speed, but'.[~!i <:!~I subm:i-~···
0 its report on 25-8-1995, -~-e. almosti a;E ~r a yearland:~;:.f

O ha'lf. and that too after the CBI spec.fal ~irector ~ail): 1
O appeared in court on 18-5-1995· in rekpopJ·e
. I ..
:not·l~e-J:f"
to
. i , ....
0 of t~i~ Court, to explain the delay P.z:i r· ~mittin·g_i~~dJ
0 report. ' ' . . ;'t~

;::.' ;._~ '.
0 The c.B. I. conducted invest'iga i_on on th~:;_~· J '. 1
0 following t~ree allegations : · .. ~I_ --~ "

0 I) Illegal deteritio~ of Ash;Lsh··:·K~.· -~~_by :the· (};/._l)
Ludhiana Police :i:rom 24-2-94 t "·:2.,-3-94 ar!: ~t' 1
O h;f.s non-surrender. "to jud~c.i'.ai"·:. U)stci9-Y i. ..;." ".

even~ng of 4. ~ ~ 1994 despit": o1e,_rs of_:.:·t~ ·
O Ludhiana• · . · . . , . :,;·/;i~· ,_
II) Harassment. physical torture ·a· d! ·111·e·ga:l /!1 .
O . con£ inement o:E
.
the members. ?£: h,e . :f. amily .. :W t,...
. . " . ·" :./··
ii/""'\~·------------~---------------~---~~~~~-=~
t-1 ~ -·--~·---~--
.... - - , - - - - - - - .......=·-;_-_-~---=..:::=·..,,,,;~::::=-~~~--·~
• ____· _____:,___~
0
0
,0
0
..,_<-,--_.,,...,
·, .
0
·.
0
0 -6-
-.
0
cr.l•£isc.21771 bf 1995 i:l
o· cr • .:1isc.No.20907 'of 1995
in Gr.Misc.3052-M of 1994
0
0 of Vino•i Kum~r by Ludhiana Pol;i.ce on
7th and 8t.O ?f March.1994: /
0
I-II) Disappearance of Vinod Kumar_.Ashi.sh
0 ~umar a~d Mur..hblar Singh,d~iy~r.
0
0I ...
.''.. s regards the first alle~ation, t~e i ,B .I.· .found
th.a.t the police of P.S.Focal Point 'he-ade<;l by
0
0 sao PaHmjit Sfogh deliberately and ittent.i9m<lly
ke,;;t; J·shish Kumar at the police stati~n overni-;iht
0
des_;Jite the orders of tne Court to lodge him in the
0 . l
0 Central Jail on 4-3-1994 it~el;E. it ll lso found
0 tnc.t the justification of tl:1:e police.. hat because

of t.ra:Efic jaiil th<:: police personnel c uld not take
0
hshish Kumar to jail b:!fore 6.
...,. 00 .i? .M. :!-.was witho.ut
0 .
c.ny basis. The C.B.r. thus, ·opii:i.~cf..bhat Pa:i:-ci.mji't
0
Singh,SHO. deliberately did not ge~ A~hish Kumar
0 ' .
lodged in the· jail in the evening of ~-3-1994 and
q
c .'.a .I.
0
0
hence ,liable for wrongful confinement!.
also found substance in allegations
in.the ultimate analysis. following ~ nc~us~~n w~~

±· The
2. and 3 jn~./
·O
drawn in paras 90 and 91 of the repo . :-
0 • 1
o· " 90. Vinod Kumar• A~ho~ ~K r and .11ukhtiar

0 Singh remain untraced so fa despite ~st
0 efforts: made· by the CBI.· T advertisements-

'
0 given ~n the news;apers and~~e use of print
0 and electronic media ha.ve . not..-i yielded ~my
0 results. The .tamily member·~ of these

' .
·O ~ersons have ·also not heard.jfrorn the:n in
0
:::e:::n ·:.:::::~. N:: ·~ec::::~~;:[,:i
1
0
0 i t can reasonably be conc-luded that the~{;. J_ ··
0
_. . . -----~~-- -~----·--·_--~-~- -~-·: ,1mn~;~
0
0
~,--.----~-·-
.:').'>e::
~/
0
0
0 .....
-7- d·f:
~~.,~~-I ~
<:;.:...'·' 1-'... .:~
0 er .Misc. 21771 of 1995 in
0 cr.,.usc.No.20907 0£ 1995 1 -.. ·~
in Cr .riJisc.3052-,,r 0£ 1994 · ' ·
0
are no .nore :::.live, even tho
\gh. .
l ~. ~t·:~:ni~--
~ -" ~.,. . .
;s
0
no eviaence to establish that they hav~·
0 I
I
died. Vinoo Kuma;r and Mukhtiar Singh were
0
last seen alive with shri s.s.sandhu. on
0
the evening o~ 15-3-94• In pr.B.C.Tiwari
0 \.. .
has admitted t.hat Shri ss 5?ndhu had come
0
with Vino'f Ku:nar to him at abou.t 8. 0"0 PM
0
on 15-3-94, even though the\ebtr¥ in the
0 '
I
Ro jnam~ha contradict:s his sf and. Ho\\ever.

0
he has recorc.ed in the cas·e··I diary of FIR
0
0
No.44/94 that. Vino"d Kumar wls produced
before him b:i· ss Sandhu. ~ ..~s ~ shri

0
ss Sandhu and Inspr.• s·.c .Ti •ari got
0 .. j
inextricably linke:c;l up ~ith the subsequent
0
disappearance 0£ VinQd Kilma As Mukhtiar
0
Singh was with Vinod Kumar· 11 along that
0
eve:ning. i t is reasonable t conclude that
!
0
he also met the same fate as yinoC. Kuaiar.
0
Thus, i t can reasonably ~e Goncluded that
0 '
l
ss Sandhu.SP and B.C.Tiwari1·sHO are ...

il.~
·O
responsible for causing ~he disappe91~ance
0
qf Vinod Kumc.~r and Mukhtiar~singh. I.l)~pr.
0
Paramjit Singh \·1as present · n the Higl{· Court
0 ..
pre;nizes on the evening of 15 .·3 • 94. J>.ft::er
0 J
the High co.urt granted anti.~ipatory· bail

0
to Vino6. Kum~·x and Ashish Kjmar. he qav~
0
0 ootice to Vinod Kumar to. ep+ar befo~e him
on 17.3. 94·. 'I' here was no i.fr):iency in tl;le , ...,. __
0 ~
;natter 2.;1d,tt·~-~re£ore. issue ·of
0
0
0
-;--~1~
-1---· --·
··o -· - .
0 ~
-0 I
0
0
-8-
0
0 cr.Misc.21771 0f 1~95 in
cr.Misc.No.20907 o~ 1995
0 in cr.:-iisc.3052-£·1 of 1994
0
0
1.ndicative of a deeper motive. Even though,
0 I
' regarding his
there is no direct evidence
0 . I I .
involvemetit in the disapptar~nce of Vi.nod
0
0
Kumar,. however. -in the l.ii·ht of hi's past
conduct in illegally deta nipg Ashish
0
Kumar (as discussed in Al· egation No. ( {)
0
and. cau~ing harassment· tolthe tnembers .of
0
Walla family (as discu?seT in Allegation
0
No. II), it would not be ~f-reasonable to
p
conclude that he had acted in furtherance
0 ~
of a larger design. The :\:act that nigh Cou. t
0 had show-cause not±ce to him for
i~sued
1·
0 conte:apt o:E court" along:wi£h Shri ss Saini i~
0 also .::;. circumstance wh:!,ch f.co·uld have led to
I
0 • I
a grudge a;ainst Vin~ ~u;~r etc. As
0-
regards -~sbok Kwnar ,.. ·.oein1. a brother-i°'-la1•:
0 .of Vi nod K1.1,na.r, he was' as,i.sting wa lia ·fami-:z
0 in- co:.irt m<'t".ters and in ot.her v;ays. He .sto• •c
0
sw;ety for the bail of .P.sjish Ku.11ar. It i-s
0 in l:lviO.ence that he wa.::;; CL ased by· ;:.. police·
o' party, in t!1e even_ing . of l .3. 94 from "naar
0 I
the house of Vinod .Kumar and his· whe:r~about:
0
are. not kno-.;n ever s.ince that time. He was
0
on a scooter. at that time ";which. has remainE.<
0 l
untraced. rt ;therefore,. ,ould be l~e~_sonabll
0
to coccludP. that he has mlt· the s·ame; fate ~::
0
Vinod Kumar and i1ukhtiar ~ingh.
0
0 91 • on the basis of m~t~r ial on re~t>"ra.,? ·}:L
0
0 --
.:;
____ .... ~:::. ......1 ______ _
.JL
,0 •I
0 ""
·O , .. ~-
0
0 61~·. '
~~!
0 .;~··
~
0
-9-
o·~·~
0 • "f>-.._
Cr .l-1isc • .21 771 of 1995 in
0
cr.Mi.sc.No.20907 a~ 1~95 ~);: ...~~~~-· ..
in Cr.Misc.3052-M. of 199~ .. ,,_
0 I ·,::~b. ::_:'.>1, '.
0
is 2.pparent that ~hri Saini rad p.e+;"f!P:U.al
""'JJ"-'·}·"~
grudge against the owner of ai~i ~ot~~
d
and a number o.~ criminal cas~s were
0
registered against this firm!when Shri
o· I
Saini was the ssp of Ludh:ianh district

6 in t.wo spells. :I:t is
l
note-wrrtny that
0
no such cases·were registere~ ag~inst
0 1 -
this firm during the ten~e ·ff any other
0
5SP. Shri Saini had got re~fste~ed cases
0
·against the owner of .M/s Saiti. Motors a·ild
0
when the financial transacti.pns between,··
0 1
· M/s Saini Motors and the fi·r: s belonging
0
to Walia family came to t.he otice of. Pol·ice
0
during the iovastigation
. . . he FIR
o·;E . .No ."22/94.'
d Jl.shish Kumar \";as arrested a efforts were
~
I .
0 t .
made to arrest V inod Kumar. I Vi nod Kui~ar
0
-~vaded arrest and appro~chedl· the High .~outt ''.
0 and levelled p~rsonal allegations ,aga19st
0 Shri Saini. 0ailable warran s 0£ a·rrest
0 I
agai.oS:t ..,hri ::aini were issutd by the ~
0
0
I Hon• ble P.igh Co.urt aS als~ tre "issue Of"
notice for contempt of Court"f s/Shri
0
s~ saq,dhu, SHO,Paramjit.Singf and Inspr.
0
0
B.C.Tiwar~ could have acted f nly on the
orders of the SSP Shri Saini' as he ~as
0
closely !nonit;::ring the cases age>.inst. the
0
vial.i..as. In all proba.bility fh:ese pers~ns ; .;
0
are .no more alive, but in thr absence.·.tji ... ;${
0 ~ . ~. ~ . . . :· :· •, f.~.-~~. . :~~·;l~.l
·th• recovery or their dean· Ties or-,?"-~\,';~:!
o·
0
-. ~'\:. -.: . :~·-· -· ~~i_,' --~t~;i± .
.. . __:;____,. _i
l0!~--'-------.;.:;..___;:=.,:-·······-·-·-:·:: ...,~.~--'-----t:...________
c
0
10
0
0
0
0
-10- . "1)\
·~ <~. ·~
t:., I,•;• "°'"...)'
cr.Nisc.21771 of 1995 in
cr.Misc.No.20907 of 1995 ~1,i::;(.
.~">C?i~=-:_ ··~=~:.
'·
in Cr .Misc. 3052-1'.i of 1994
·,·.;.,··'~
l
9
0 ~~~
-~-~.,
rel·ial;>le evidence iri this r1gard, i~
0
('j
0
cannot be es~ablished ttiat Jhey have
been killed by the.;>olice. I
Of the ·Circum3tantial evide1Ce on recor~.~
In the light
0
it is established that shri SS saini, the
0
then ssP Ludi·1iana; shri ss 1an~hu~sP;
0
0
BC Tiwari ,.sHO PS KotwaJ.i ant .Par·amjit
, sin5Jh.s:no P!:i I:'.ocal P~int. arj responsible

0
for causing the disappearan~e of V i,nod
0 ·f
Kumar. Ashok Kuma~ and Mukhtiar Singh."
. f
0 i
0 On submission 6£ report by the c •.
1
B.=!'.t...' not~ce ~:~s.
0 given to the parties a~d :af~er hear~j.g the.c~~:i:sel
0 for the parties co~cerned, yide 9rdef.. dated 14 •·9. 9 5
0 the CSI was asxec'I to submit cballan ~thin one
0 month from the date 0£ order,, before. the Chief· .....
0 Judicial Magistrc.ta,,Arn;:,ala, and the tate Go:Ve_rnment:-
0 was also- directed to accord neces,sar sanction unde;i:-
0 section 197 cr.P.c. when asked by th .c.B:r-~-. Ex-gr:atia
0 payment was also ordered to be made o the wives and

·, I . .
0 children of Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar!Singh,,driyer.
\
f
0 The matter came to be reviv~d on 7.12.1995
0 when Criminal I<Iisc.No.20907 of ~995 ~as fi~ed by
0 Harjinder Kaur w5..fe of Mukhtiar Si~gr· a minor son
0 and two minor daughters~ stating ~~a~ they hav~
0 r.
~ not received the amount of ex-;gratia payment a.if.a,
0 therefore, the same rnay be directed · o be releas.ed
0 to them. When this application cam ·up pefor~_hne~
·O notice <?f the same was issued to ·th.e counsel £6r ·. :: "1 •, ••
·o CRI as wel 1 as the State of Punjab £ r 13 .12 .1.§~9~5;~- ,· ;.

0 .t;.::: ;:>> -~·
f ~:~ ..
..Lfl_____
··~
--o
0
.(!Y ~~
..
0
0
·a t~~~
-11-
0 ,;r
0 ~ cr.Hisc.21771 of 1995 in
Cr.Misc.No .20907 of 1995
0 in cr.Misc.3052-M 0£ 1994
0
0 qn 13-12-1995. I enquired from the c
the applicant with regard to filing f c{lallan by
0
c.B.I, and according of sah9tion und~r Section 197
0 I
1 •
'
cr.P.C. by the Government. Mr.Rajive Bhalla, counsel
0
for the applicants,' submitted at -the B~r that
0 .
0 nOither sanC.tio~ under section H7 C+P.C. had been

accorded by the:Gove~nment nor the q allan had been
0
0 f il~d by the CB I. I f el't quite dist bed. The
I I
Delputy Advocate General .Punjab and co_ nsel for th.~.-

0
CBI were directed to place on record he information
0
with regard to according of sanction nder section
0
197\cr.P.C. and filing of challan •. 'J'.. e case was
0 I
adjburned to 19-12-1995.. On -'the adjo rned date,

0 l . .
Mr.N.L .Sarin. Advocate General.Punjab.._ produced the
0 I ~ ~ . . ~ . •,
file. On going through the file, I ~oun<t that

0
thoi;igh on 14-9-199!; the C.!U was asked \t~ file .·
b
th~ Govi:;~~men~
":·.
challan within one .month and. s.tate

0
was asked 'to accord sanction forthwith,. '"the C.B.I.
0
asked the Gove~ment only on 1a/20-1o~l995.i:: •. .;'
0
0
much after one month of the pass in~·,. of\ ~rder t~ .. ..-
accord sanction. sanction order produ1ed by
01 . . l
Mr:S~rin showed that sanction was acco,~ed only
0
cm 18-.12-1995,i.e. a day earlier. t_o 'th, ~ate fixed.
0
0 It was shocking to. hear f.~om him 'that· r·e G6ve~nm7~t
had ·accorded sanct.i:on only after a grea:1t pers.uaAiqn

0 ~
l
i
and h,is personal intervention in the .rna'.tter. It was
0
0 disturbing to note th~~ S3.0Ction qad· bern a_cc~rdel. .. ·.'.
only for offences punishable under sectiqn 120-B r./w .,;
0 . .1 ~ ;_...., ;.:
342, 343 and 365 IR:: and not under sect-1dns~'t;?4j('~-~~r~:~
0
·O
r~ despite the finding of the CBI that \three ...LH7,L '.j
1 . . ·;'-':.ifi.".··. 'l ' /
·a
·-----~·-·- . ,__ ·-~· -~ ·, ~~~J1llb//
I·
I
_n I
c
-o
·O·-·· ..•_i : 2:2: ·.'.:;~:!:·-;:.·,;~:·/. ·~
0
·--~<cb··
0
0
r··
v~~ -12-
0
0,,, ~ Cr .Misc .No. 21771 0£ 1995 in ·~ ~ ~:>r~
'.'3>q ~ !
er .Misc.No. 20907 of 1995
0 in cr.Misc.No.3052-M of 1994 '"c ~r..~ ~~
. ~~..
.,_ :{:~:;\~.,
. ... , .
~
0 persons. namely; V inod :K:urnar •. Ashok K ~~~·,:iiP~
0 I .:e~> •;.;·'·...,..~
l~ukhtiar Singh are no r.iore alive. I, also ...,~~~
0 d~serves to be mentionew that though lh~ CBI
0 had asked the state to accord sanctio1 under
0 Section 364 IFC as well. but sanction Jhas been.-
0 .accorded under section 365 IPC which 1s a lesser
0 offence triable by a Magis~rate.. Th~lefore.
0 by order dated 19-12-1-99-5$ the Direct1r.;CB:;I: was

0 asked to ~xplain this aspect of. the mitter·-and
0 also to· show-cause as to 'i:Jhy he :qe ·no~ proceeded
~
0 against under the Contempt of Courts Rct for

0 npt filing the ohallan with,_;, one mon,h. The
0 State of Punjab through its C~ief Sec~~tary was
0 also directed to place on record by wty of an
0 affidavit the cause for delay ·an<::J. ~be-_ reasons .for .. ···
'
0 I I not according sanction forthwith on receipt of
0 request from the CBI. Z had also bbsJrved that
0 the Government on t~e basis of fin<li~s of. the
0 CBI given in ~~s repor.t ,. instead 0£ Plfoceedi~g
0 agpinst these police officials. sat o+er

~
th~.
L
0 matter~ The case was adjourned for ~2-12-1995.
0 i.~. today. Now a Crimina~ Misc:A;pllcation

0 No.;.1771 of 1995 has been filed on be~alf. of
O· s .s .Saini. DIG (Administrati9n) ar:d , th~ ..applicatfon
oj l
is supported by an affidavit of s.s.sji~i and

0 also the affidavit of hr.Anupam GuptaJAP.vo~ate. . .. ·
0 Prayer made· in the application is ·for\transfer
0 of the case from this Court. ·In para.9· of the
0 application, the avermc.mt made is not only
0
0
·O
._I!'----"--~~----~~~~=-=·-···;-~···-·~·-----.:....
0
0 JI , ••
1.0
0
0
c
0 .. -13-
0 t:
J
Cr.Misc.No.21771 of 1995 in
0 Cr.Misc.No.20907 of 1995 ·
in Cr.Misc.No.3052-A of 1994
0
0 :irrelevant and vague·. but has als no concern
0 with this Court. In reply, the a lerments made
0 in oaras 9, 10 and 11 have been specifically
0 den~ed and it has heen stated ·tha, "t~ese

0 allegations are scanda;ous, contej:tuous and
0 a brazen attemut to interfere witH the
0 administration- of justic~. ~he ejtire_exercise
0 is an -attempt to some-how prevent. thi~;_Hon'bl~..-"
0 Court. from dealing uith this matt; r. The
Q avennents in these ~')aragraphs are·'·.i.ntentiona.l,ly
0 ai:id blate):ltly conte:aptuous of ·thl Court. The
0 applicant appears .to· fuffer from
0 delusion of. self r:i.ght.;;eoµsness. The applicat.iop

\ . . .
0 appears to suggest that judiq~al fndependence
0 must bow before blackma.il. The. a.Jplicant ·cannot
0 be permitted t·, misuse the proces1 of l~w_.• ·

0 .. _.,, The present ar.):::>lic•:tio!J. appears tq be anoth?;t' bid.
,.
0 to get the Cfise oui: of my board. iwh~n· I have
01 said "another" • I r:tean to say tha in the· past
0 too, such atterupts had been made. one such ··

.; . !
0 attempt was wh<:n a retinue of Nihf.gs who are
0 stated to be close to one· of the · lice officials
0 swarmed t.1-ie Court-ropm,leaving no space for
0 ia1·•yers and' parties conc~rned. Tliley vacated· the

. 1t
0 , court-room
.
when s.e:i:vices o:E C.R.P;F.
~ . ·;
parsonn·e1 \._
0 posted in the High Court w~re req~isitioned.: ·
0 _If I correctly remambe.o, this .inc{dent was_
0 highlighted, by Chandigarh Newsl in~, a local
0 edit~on f
of .Indian ...!:xpress;. which eads j'
:h::E:.:~i::::::::Je coul;~il~.;
0
0 the
_r-i
·
........------..··- L~~-"-·
.. __n;t::J2~-
:e5
(J
..... -·
·O
0
0 .·
.[) ~ ~
..!""'
-:~/
0
~ ~11;p
-14-
0
6 er.Misc. 21791 of ,1995 in ~h c-~ner
oun ~'!"
' .·::-,.,'"'"
,'
c r. !•fisc::: • .No. 20 90 7 of 1995
in er . .Misc.3052-:>: of 1994
-:.t;.;r:·. .' ;,~;~~.tt111~!';-J
._'J:Jis;;.;,h '•iil)r~
0
0
~
when the Sain< case was lr~~ fo:'
hear:\ng.on ·1onday. A lar~e number of··
.d Ni~angs,dr~ssed in their Ilourful
D robes owing allegiance to jit Singh
~ in~e
1
Phoola, evinced keen ~st in the
0 case and thronged the ared.
I
0 Phoola who has had a dubious track
0 of record, is considered close ··to
I 1 .
0 sumedh Sing:-i Saini - who ~s under a cloud
0 in the case under ...~earing.] The judge,.
,
0 Justice V .l':.Jhanji had be{ busy in a
0 divisi'on bencJ:!. along with ustice
0 M.S.Liberhan till· 2.30 p. ,~ and the
0 court room was locked frotinside. As
Q qOon as it opened, the re _inue of Nihangs
;() besides others, includingj large h~mber
0 of Advocates swarmed i~ q itete the

~
[) char~n of the judge. T~e c~PF was
() called in~o make room. for en~ry of the
l
p counsels £or the parties concerned apd
0 the media p8rsons. who ~e)e stranded
. Q.. I
outside due to the rush. Tr_e CRPF
·o personnel cleared the courl-r9om of the
~ "Blue Brigace" and other ~iriJ.ians to
0 enable the court to procee,d.'.' ·
0
Again. on a day when I was sitting jt'th Justice
e I .
H.s .Li:Oerhan in Division Bench, the j:...hen
.0 Advocate General .Punjab, Mr.G.I<.Chath:-ath, caf!le
• b ~
'i:O
·o
0
Lrl ---· . ...-.. --····· ----- -----·-
~ I
~o
·ll ·I
·0
0
0
~
0
0
$
0
0
c
I
important information to pass on lin regard to the
-0
() matter being heard by me in sing~e Berych. When
c; I asked him to giv!?. inf.ormation .1!n open Court.he
stated that it being a sensitivefmatter. he would

0
() like to convey it in c;ha!!J.ber. Wjen we retj_red to
the Chamber. ha came along with mr .s .chattopadhaya
0 I'
. l il-•• I .G. of P;olice,··;U:Gjab, and said that the
0
0 A.I.G. of Police,P~njab has sometdefinite
information that: .should be car ful.as there
0
is some danger to ~y life. A si,ilar exercise
0 '
was conducted in c·::iqrt-room No.l". where my Lord
0
the Chief Justice was sitting. in_,,Division B.ench.
0
His ·Lordship was also made to ref ire to Chamber
Q
along with the Cornp.;m.i,on Judge apd the
0
conve~ed to nie earlier,
·o
0
information •11hicf·i had been
was repeated to His Lordship.. tt

after the as.sassination of s .Be,nt Singh, Chief
only_ th.is •. -
0 1
Ninister,Punjab, two-three artil 1es written by
Q
Q
Nr .Ani:lpam Gupta ,l:.d.vocate for Mr. s .s. Saini had
appeared in. The ~L'1:~bune and one had to read
0
·o bet-ween the liner:; to find ~ t~at i t wa.;; a
crude and b:c.:.zen attempt t~ over-awe this

Cl
Court as it had ordered investi9a~ion by the
0
CBI. Durina~ this time. I had also been
0 }
I
·e receiving anonymous telephone c~lls threatening
0 to wash away my hands from thi~t· ~ase and cine

such caller had ~;,)ne to the .ext nt of saying
0
;
0 i.
? •.:
·O
' \··
~1
-·-·~·
0
10 .i
.... --
_::::::=~-~~-:-.:~__ : _: b
0
0
~
~ ~'n
~ ,r'("J...1-{' ®
0
0
,.-.
• -16-
--~ \~
e
·-·,.
c·r.Misc.21771 of. 1995 in
cr.Misc.No.'20907 of 1995 .
"roh7/~1·:1;.,·;11:'.,~.>;,.\?;r:i~
_: :': .';. .,~, ..
0 -
in .cr.M.isc.~Jo.3~:52-M
.
of 1994 . '.lJ.,.11 ~1:1--.lii.:;-
......
0 '
that r would be ?icked uo and thrown in furnace
0 like the t~ree r12d been ~hrc·wntalong with their
0 car and scooter. I· had brough all thes<~ facts
..
0 to the n9tice of Hy Lord the C ief Justice in
'
I
0 presence of my .. )rother Judges.~. Tfie modus-operan li
D thus.had bzr;n t.<.> create fear Pl?Ychosis. The

i
0 present appl.ic2t. ion has come to be filed only
l
0
l
when thi·s court did not deter ·from proceeding
I
0 with the cane.
0 ,Or<S~r d<""'.ted 19-12-1995 had been passed
0 becau.,; e time an-.. again the i.;pef Court hadc· ··
0 /
noticed that pr.:i'::ection guaran · eed to the
0 ' citizens of .India under Articl 21 of t"r,e
0 Constitution of India is being rendered negat.ory
0 by indiscriminal:<:? acts of the lice. Hy Lord •.
~
()
the C11ief Justice of India in ±nder s ingh v.
0 state of Punjab, (1995} 3 scc-10·2. has •
!
0 observed "'l'his ::ourt has in re"6ent times ·come
0 across far ;:oo :r-any instances ,there
I . .. •ool ice
the
0 -
have ;acted, not ::.:) uphold tiie liw and protect the
0 citizen but in -~.id of a p;civatj cause and to
0 O!=Jpress the citizen. It is a 1rend that. bodes ·.i
0 •
for the ·country and it must be i promptl-y checked.
I
0 Hon'ble P.aizan.vddin,J, in Dhaianjay Sharma v.

0
state of Ha.£Y9~· (1995) ~ scc-
1757, has
0
0
observed "It is in com.rnon know edge that in 1
\
recent tj.mes our administrativ~ system is
0
passing, through a most critical phase,par.ticular
l
0
the policing sy;stem which is nbt as effective
0 ll
0
0
&J
0
0
0
-~:;,~~~"--~::::
0
~
\
l
0
{~-,
(
-17- -·· //
0 ,.•. t:' .
0 cr.Misc.21771 0£ 1995 inj ~--~ ~~

Cr.Misc.No.20907 C'f 1995! ·. .. \
0 in Cr.Misc .3052-M 6f 1994 ~ ne-,.;. ·· •.,
~h.Coun <..; ..... ''.tiar,(1
~- :,;· .;·,:: .'.:..l1;11i~
0 as i t ought to be and unless soml f,iz:ru~ca.J:'~
0 correctional ste?:>:c. and measures ~re taken without

0 further delay. the danger looms h.arge when the whc le
I
0 orderly s0ciety may be in jeopardf. It would,·indeEd,
0 be a sad day i i t}:e general publi starts entertairin

.-
0 an impression that the police for e does not exist
0 for the protection of society's benefits but it
0 operates mainly for its own benef t and once such a1

)
0 impression comes to prevail. i.t w uld lead to
0 disastrous conseque11'ces." Tiffie nd again, it has
0 been argued in court that the p.:>l~ce off ic.ials who
0 have been £oun'.l res_:)Qnsible for th,e disappe<irance oi

l
0 three persons. ar.e innocent. What1· about -those
0 thrae 9ersons who hav~ ~isappearea_\· in thin .<1.ir ? •
0 They had also not b;:~en found guilt~ by any_ Court.

'l'he fact remain-> th.:.,t till date ne ther th,e
0
0 Punjab Police nor t;1e C.B.I. has b en able to ··
provide any clue with regard to- th~ir whereabouts.

0
The responsibility to maintain the rule o:(': .law
0
.o • lies on .all in<oiividu.o.ls and instit t.ions including
·o the State. The :>tat2.. is not absol d of its: duty
0 only by mqking payme:1t of ex-grat;i.a'. amount to the

' .
0 families of thEJ vict:~ms, but is also under· c.
0 constitutional rr::::incla'::.::i to take. actic;m again.:t .the
0 ;:~rrin9 police of:tici.::ls in accordanbe with law.

I
·O 'l'he State is answera;:>le to the wive~ and childr::en
·o of the victims w~-io vl'.!!.e their onl v read-earners.
0 T'his Court had £,~lt hclpl~ss as and !~hen the ..
0 chil<l·ren and la::li~~s ·o~: the victims· Had

~
come to
0 the cou):"t to i·:itness ::he proceedingstwith the ·,.
0 expectation that some information we' ld be giv~ri.

...
~.·
0 \
._[i -.~···.:;.,_. _._ -- - '

------·--
0 \
J .-_..
-__ .::._
0
0
!
() ~-
0
Cl ' .. - -18-
' l~ . ·
-~ ,.·'1.7/:,,.
0
0
·' -. ;~~ k~~o
cr,.Misc. 21 77,1 of 1995 in lfl;,hflner '··, . -·
0 Cr.Misc.20907 of 1995 ov . ~v::· ·;.·._ .
in Cr.Misc. 3052-r-~ of 1994 i;;{ · ·,~,:'.-;:irr~
0
0 with regard ~~L~~:~~~ed~!appear l on:·~~:~:l:i·~·::·
0. would get some effective order~~om this Court.
() As regards the ai::Eidavit filed ~y

I
Mr.Anupam .r.:::·.
0 Gupta,Advoca'te in support of application, I wish
0 to reiterate the ,'Jbservations ol P.B.sawant,J

I
in sanjiv Da t~a, scc-6\9:
0 1
( 1995) 3
0 "The .lege.l profession isi a solemn and

0 seti~us occunation. It rs a noble Callin~
0 and all, ::hose who belo.i:f to it are its
0 hon· >Urable members. Al t~ough the
0 entry ·-i:o the profession~ can be hnd. by
0 acquirin~; merely the qu lification o:E
I
. .
0 technical competence,· t ·e honour as a
' ..
0 pro£essi,onal has to }?e ! a.intain~cl by
·'
0 its· rnembc:.rs by their exemplary conduct
0 both in ·"!1d outside the Court. 'l'he

I
\
0 · legal profession is dif~erent from other
0 9rofessir,ns in that wha~' the liiWyers do,

.
0 affects rot .only .. an ind~vidual but
.o the admini.stration of . j1stice w~ich. ..i~ th~

0 foundatio:1 of the civil~sed society. Both
0 as ·a. le.ao.ing member of t e intelli~entsia
0 of the society and as a esponsible

0 citizen, the lawyer has o conduct
0 himself c.s a rrodel for o hers 'both in.
·o his sn:ofes3ional and in his privc:ite 9nd
0 puolic life. · T-he society !':!as a right
I
0 to expect of him sucl:~ id1al behavio.ur •....
0 If the -proj:ession is to survive;

l
the
.
0
0
:rt_ _____ _- -- \
,. .. t _ _ _.._. ____
>""··
----~--~ ... · - - - ..
0
-o
rO
0
0
0 j.- .. .,
0 ~
., .
-19-
~ 41'T&sn:l,
0 .. ,.
\,
J I
i ~ '. .
0 cr.Misc.21771 of 1995 in ~mr,.,'dr .·. :
er .Misc. 20907 of .1995 {~ ~ t"t>Ct,•; ·~· .,. ·: ."
1
:~~ifrha
0 in Cr.Misc.3052-M of 1994 t:'l.i..,...
..,rJal<ili'·il
• • • ;·lEJ,.:,...,_11'4
• -1"'9!!!11
0 judicial system has to be italised.

0 No service w:ll be too small· in making
0 the system (~cf .icient, ~ffe tive and
0 credible." ..·
0
At this .stage, I also wish to ml'.:!ntilfn that since
0
the matter was c~msi•l~rec;l. important in the State
0
of Punjzib, the ccurt.-~roceedings weje being
0
re1?0rted by the Pres'·' from time to time, but
0 . I.
iately in one lepdin·~ newspaper, tli~· manner
0
in whiqh court-:.,roce<i'dings are beini reported
0 . . l
has given an iin~ressi..)n that its Edttor
0
has also come. un·Je·r 1:.:-ie pressl,lre o:f \the police.·
0
0
'l'he qll.e!,,tion t.Bus. ·remains to be de~.:'-ded
is what this Court should do in th~ e circum~;tances;.
0
Counsel for the families of victims though had
0
contended that. :?roceedings under th. ~ontempt 9£
0
Courts Act be .initiated against -sh • • s .Saini
0
and also Mr.Anu9am GU.J?ta~Advocate· w o has file'd
0
affidavit in ~U;)port of the applica ion~ 'but
0
I do not Qropo1se to ..)ass any order ;in furtherance
.o . . !
of my order dated 19-12-1995 or to ~roceed aga·inst
·o
them under the Conter~.pt of Courts ~let and .I w~uld
0
lepve it to the petitioners t~ see~ appropriate
0
direction in all re9ards from the-lon•ble supi::erne
0 I .
Court of India as in the reply, it has come that
0
the state of Punjab has fil~d s.L • • impugning,...
·o
the order dated 14-9-1995 Of this ourt.
0 -/:pt>
Ashish Kumar~as filed S.L.P. and .rit petitibn
0
as well. as a caveat, and a mention is l:ikely ·.'.1:9 ...
0
0 'ML-.'.·
. "~
.
_rt....__--.!__ _, :- .....
~-----~~~=·-·=·-·-~·=·~-=--=·-:::·~--
.o .,
-o l
----------·--- -
10
0
0
;r
~j ~·r
0 -r .ii.., -20-
i
0 .. ~}. ~~ ... ··
()
"""-
{ .. ·
ld.,,"!11~1'!·
co!,,.:.<·. ~
•<:-:()
cr.Misc.21771 of 1995 in
0 1Cr.Misc. 20907 1995 of
in cr.Misc.3052-M of 1994 (.~;:_ -. <: ·: .:;;:1a
0
0
be made to the Hon' ·q~e Chi_ef J.ust · ce of ~n~i~--~~~ 1'.,:.
I '.
••in the first week of January.1996 for listing
0
0 of the s.r..P. ;
0 B-Ursuant to oraer dated 19-12-1995,
0 affidavits ~ave been filed by the state 0£
0 Punjab as well as by c.B.I~
0 Befo~c concluding. wisi to

I comment
0 that the Co.nst.ituti:::m has .. entr.1:1st. d the task
0 of administering law to the Judie ary whose

0 view on.. the subj~ct is "f~nal and · inding on
0 all till it is changed by Higher ourt.
0 court ' s verdi.ct has ··to be respect .d not .by
0 the authority of its rea~o~ but a+ways
I
by
l
0 reason of its authority.,regardles·s of the
-- ·1
0
::y~at it may caU:se hardship ti a pOrt;ica:,a.ar ~ ,
0
0 ·~
The matter is adjoµrn·ed l.tne-die
shall be taken uP as and Wen an .ider .'l.n 4i~ :\

.i
·ii·
0.._.t.,._ ~· .,..,. f~· r . .w...L...:~.:.. '

regard is received. front the Hon 'b E! sup:x:;eme (C<;:i~t ..
-! _$cf/. y/}< ~'.] ~~~!.

! . :J l ......,.,P 0 -
) ' -~
.. 'X-\ l .
~ I~} !
Certlfle~~ beAf71 qp~
. ~~~~ .
..
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
@
AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Misc. No. 3546 of 1994.
In
Criminal Misc. No. 3052-M of 1994
VinodKumar .......................... Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab .......................... Respondent
Application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for seeking direction.
RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: .
Crl. Misc 21771 of 1995 in

Crl. Misce No. 20907of1995
in Cr. Misc. 3052-M of 1994
Present: Mr. Anupam Gupta, Adovcate

for the applicant
Mr. Rajive Bhalla, Advocate
Mr. M.L. Sarin, A.G. Punjab with
Mr. S.K. Bhanot, DAG Punjab
Mr. R.K. Randa, Advocate for CBI.
On 5-3-1994, under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice,

Criminal Misc. No. 3546of1994 in Criminal Misc. No. 3052-M of 1994 was put
up at my residence. Vinod Kumar, petitioner, had appeared in person and in his
application, he had submitted that because of dispute between that S.S.P. of
Ludhiana, Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini, and proprietors of Mis Saini Motors, who
(§)
are closely related, the petitioner had been dragged unnecessarily and he
apprehended that in case he visited Ludhiana without proper police protection, he
would be taken into custody despite the orders of this court and would be severely
beaten up or even liquidated. He also stated that his father had expired that day,
i.e. 5-3-1994, but because of fear, he could no perform the last rites of his father.
He further submitted that his brother, Ashish Kumar, was taken into custody on
24-2-1994, and on 25-2-1994 an application was moved before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana, for production of Ashish Kumar but the
police did not bother to put in appear on 26-2-1994 and 27-2-1994, and it was
only on 28-2-1994 that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, directed the
police to send a report by 1-3-1994. Report was filed on behalf of S.H.O. P.S.
Focal Point, Ludhiana, that Ashish Kumar was not in their custody. However, on
3-3-1994, Ashish Kumar was produced in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ludhiana, as an accused in the same very F .I.R. in which the police had stated
that Ashish Kumar was not in their custody. Since the allegations made by the
petitioner were very serious in nature and deserved to be probed into and also that
petitioner had sought protection, a direction was issued to the Inspector General
of Police, Chandigarh to provide adequate police protection; with an advance
information to the police authorities at Ludhiana that order of this Court whereby
anticipatory bail was allowed by R.K. Nehru, J, be strictly followed and no
departure be made. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana was directed to pass
orders, releasing Ashish Kumar on bail on his furnishing personal bonds in the
sum of Rs. I 0,0001-. Mr. S.S. Saini, S.S.P. Ludhiana was asked to be present in
Court on 9-3-1994 to answer the allegations made in the petition. Despite order
dated 5-3-1994, Mr. S.S. Saini was not present in Court on 9-3-1994. The
Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, on the instruction of Mr. S.S. Sandhu,
S.P.(City) Ludhiana made statement that Mr. S.S. Saini, SSP, had proceeded on
leave in the afternoon of 6-3-1994, In the meanwhile, another application dated
8-3-1994 had also been filed on which notice had been issued for 9-3-1994 in
which Vinod Kumar had submitted that after performing the last rites of his father
when he came to Chandigarh along with two security-guards provided by the
Chandigarh Police, he made a call to his residence at Ludhiana on which he came
to know that in his absence the police had raided his house , beat up all male
members and took away Promod Kumar, brother of Vinod Kumar, Sh. Ali,
Orderly ofVinod Kumar's brother-in-law, Mukhtiar Singh, Vinod Kumar's driver
and Vinod Kumar' servant. Rajinder son of Sohan Lal, brother-in-law of Vinod
Kumar, who had stood surety for the bail of Ashish Kumar was also taken away
by the police. The allegations made in the applications as well as affidavits filed
by Vinod Kumar, were so serious in nature that it appeared to the Court that Mr.
Sumedh Singh Saini, SSP, Ludhiana and the officers working under him at
Ludhiana had no respect for the order of this Court. Therefore, this Court issued
show-cause notice to Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini, SSP, and Paramjit Singh, SHO,
Ludhiana as to why they be not proceeded against under the Contempt of Courts
Act. Since Mr. Saini had not appeared in response to order of this Court, bailable
warrant in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- were ordered to be issue for securing his
presence.
On 11-3-1994, Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini, SSP, presented a petiti_on

at my residence for cancellation of anticipatory bail grated to Vinod Kumar. Mr.
Saini stated that Vinod Kumar may be allowed to be arrested in case registered
against him . Prayer was not accepted and the matter was adjourned to 15-3-
1994. On 15-3-1994, anticipatory bail earlier granted to Vinod Kumar in case FIR
No.22/22-2-1994 was confirmed. Ashish Kumar and Vinod Kumar were also
allowed anticipatory bail in case, FIR No.44 dated 10-3-1994. In view of serious
allegations regarding illegal custody of Ashish Kumar from 24-2-1 '994 to 2-3-
1994; keeping him in police custody despite the order of the Court remanding
him to judicial custody and further illegally taking into custody Promod Kumar,
Sh. Ali, Mukhtiar Singh, Vinod Kumar brother's servant and Vinod Kumar's
@
brother-in-law and Rajinder, this Court appointed District and Sessions Judge
(Vigilance) Haryana to go into the allegations and submit his report to the High
Court within two months. The contempt proceedings initiated against Sumedh
Singh Saini, SSP, and Pararnjit Singh, SHO, were kept in abeyance till receipt of
report from the District and Sessions Judge (vigilance) Haryana. The security
earlier provided to Vinod Kumar by Chandigarh police under of this Court was
ordered to be withdrawn and an intimation to this effect was sent to I.G. Police,
Chandigarh. On the very next day, i.e. on 16-3-1994, Ashish Kumar filed
Crl.Misc.No.4035 of 1994, stating that in retaliation of orders granting
anticipatory bail by this Court, the police at Ludhiana under the orders of Sumedh
Singh Saini, SSP, SS Sandu, SP; and Paramjit Singh have kidnapped Vinod
Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh and he apprehended that they would
be liquidated. Notice of the application was given to the Advocate General,
Punjab. Mr.G.K. Chatrath, the then Advocate General, Punjab, in response to
notice, appeared and stated that the said persons are not in custody of the police.
This application was treated as Habeas Corpus petition and a direction was issued
to the state of Punjab through Advocate General, Punjab, for tracing out the
missing person. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time at the
request of the state. On 21-3-1994, report of one Kultar Singh, SP, Headquarters
was filed. Since the state with the police force at its command had failed to trace
o-ut the missing persons and was also not in a position to provide satisfactory
answers to the queries put by the Court, I decided to entrust the matter to the
Central Bureau of Investigation for through and detailed investigation. The
enquiry which was earlier to the District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana,
was withdrawn. The investigation had been entrusted to the C.B.I. with the
expectation that keeping in view the allegations made against top police officials
of the State, it would act with speed, but the CBI submitted its report on 25-8-
1995, i.e. almost after a year and half and that too after the CBI Special Director
had appeared in Court on 18-5-1995 in response to notice of the Court, to explain~
the delay in submitting the report.
The C.B.I. conducted investigation on the following three

allegations:
I) Illegal detention of Ashish Kumar by the Ludhiana police from

24-2-94 to 2-3-94 and also his non-surrender to judicial custody
in the evening of 4.3.1994 despite orders of the CJ, Ludhiana:
II) Harassment, , physical torture and illegal confinement of the
members of the family of Vinod Kumar by Ludhiana Police on
7th and 8th ofMarch,1994:
111) Disappearance of Vinod Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Mukhtiar
Singh, driver.
As regards the first allegation, the C.B.I. found that the police of
P.S. Focal point headed by SHO Paramjit Singh deliberately and intentionally
kept Ashish Kumar at the police station overnight despite the orders of the Court
to lodge him in the Central Jail on 4-3-1994 itself. It also found that the
justification of the police that because of traffic jam the police personnel could
not take Ashish Kumar to jail before 6.00 P.M. was without any basis. The C.B.I.
thus, opined that Paramjit Singh, SHO, deliberately did not get Ashish Kumar
lodged in the jail in the evening of 4-3-1994 and hance, liable for wrongful
confinement. The C.B.I. also found substance in allegations No. 2 and 3 and in
the ultimate analysis, following conclusion was drawn in paras 90 ans 91 of the
report: -
"90. Vinod Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh remain
untraced so far despite best efforts made by the CBI. The
advertisements given in the newspapers and the use of print and
electronic media have· not yielded any results. The family
members of these persons have also not heard from them in last
(§)
about 17 months. Nor have their dead bodies been recovered. In
the circumstances it can reasonably be concluded that they are no
more alive, even though there is no evidence to establish that they
have died. Vinod Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh were last seen alive
with Shri S.S. Sandhu on the evening of 15-3-94. Inspr .B.C.
Tiwari has admitted that Shri SS Sandhu had come with Vinod
Kumar to him at about 8.00 PM on 15-3-94, even though the entry
in the Rojnamcha contradicts his stand. However, he has recorded
in the case diary of FIR No.44/94 that Vinod Kumar was
Produced before him by SS Sandhu. Thus, Shri SS Sandhu and
Inspr .B.C. Tiwari got inextricably linked up with the subsequent
disappearance of Vinod Kumar. As Mukhtiar Singh was with
Vinod Kumar all along that evening, it is reasonably be concluded
that he also met the same fate as Vinod Kumar, Thus, it can
reasonably be concluded that SS Sandhu, SP and B.C.Tiwari,
SHO are responsible for causing the disappearance of Vinod
Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh. Inspr. Paramjit Singh was Present in
the High Court premises on the evening of 15.3.1994. After the
High Court granted anticipatory bail to Vinod Kumar and Ashish
Kumar, he gave notice to Vinod Kumamr to appear before him on
17.3.94. There was no urgency in the matter and, therefore, issue
of notice by Inspr. Paramjit Singh to Vinod Kumar, though
Legally not invalid, was unusual conduct indicative of a deeper
motive. Even though, there is no direct evidence regarding his
involvement in the disappearance of Vinod Kumar, however, in
the light of his past conduct in illegally detaining Ashish Kumar
(as discussed in Allegation No. (I) and causing harassment to the
members of Walia family (as discussed in Allegation No.II), it
would not be un-reasonable to conclude that he had acted m
GP
furtherance of a larger design. The fact that High Court had issued
show-cause notice to him for contempt of Court along with Shri
SS Saini I also a circumstance which could have led to a grudge
against Vinod Kumar etc. As regards Ashok Kumar, being a
brother-in-law ofVinod Kumar, he was assisting Walia family in
Court matters and in other ways. He stood surety for the bail of
Ashish Kumar. It is in evidence that he was chased by a police
party in the evening of 15.3.94 from near the house of Vinod
Kumar and his whereabout are not know ever since that time. He
was on a scooter at that time which has remained untraced. It,
therefore, would be reasonable to conclude that he has met the
same fate as Vinod Kumar and Muktiar Singh.
91. On the basis of material on record, it is apparent that Shri
Saini had personal grudge against the owner of Saini Motors and
a number of criminal cases were registered against this firm when
Shri Saini was the SSP of Ludhiana district in two spells. It is
note-worthy that no such cases were registered against this firm
during the tenure of any other SSP. Shri Saini had got registered
cases against the owner of Mis Saini Motors and when the
financial transactions between Mis Saini Motors and firm
belonging to Walia family came to the notice of police during the
investigation of the FIR No.22/94 Ashish Kumar was arrested and
efforts were made to arrested Vinod Kumar. Vinod Kumar evaded
arrest and approached the High Court and leveled personal
allegations against Shri Saini. Bailable warrants of arrest against
Shri Saini were issued by the Hon'ble High Comi as also the issue
of notice for contempt of Court. S/Shri SS Sandhu, SHO, Paramjit
Singh and Inspr. B.C. Tiwari could have acted only on the orders
of the SSP Shri Saini as he was closely monitoring the cases
§)
against the Walias. In all probability these persons are no more
alive, but in the absence of the recovery of their dead bodies or
other reliable evidence in this regard, it cannot be established that
they have been killed by the police. In the light of the
circumstantial evidence on record, it is established that Shri SS
Saini, the then SSP Ludhiana; Shri SS Sandhu, SP; BC Tiwari,
SHO PS Kotwali and Paramjit Singh SHO PS Focal point are
responsible for causing the disappearance of Vinod Kumar,
Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh."
On submission of report by the C.B.I., notice was given to parties and after
hearing the counsel for the concerned. vide order dated 14.9 .95 the CBI was asked
to submit challan within one month from the date of order, before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Amoala, and the State Government was also directed to
accord necessary sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. when asked by the C.B.I.
Ex-gratia payment was also ordered to be made to the wives and children of
Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh, driver.
The matter came to be revived on 7.12.1995 when Criminal

Misc.No.20907 of 1995 was filed by Harjinder Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh, a
minor son and two minor daughters, stating that they have not received the
amount of ex-gratia payment and, therefore, the same may be directed to be
released to them. When this application came up before me, notice of the same
was issued to the counsel for CBI as well as the State of Punjab for 13.12.1995.
On 13.12.1995, I enquired from the Counsel forthe applicant with regard to filing
of challan by C.B.I. and according of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. by the
Government. Mr.Rajive Bhalla, counsel for the applicant, submitted at the Bar
that neither sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. had been accorded by the
Government nor the challan had been filed by the CBI. I felt quite disturbed. The
Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and counsel for the CBI were directed to place
on record the information with regard to according of sanction under Section 197
Cr.P.C and filing of challan. The case was adjourned to 19-12-1995. On the
adjourned date, Mr. M.L. Sarin, Advocate General, Punjab, Produced the file. On
going through the file, I found that though on 14-9-1995 the CBI was asked to
file challan within one month and the State Government was asked to accord
sanction forthwith, the C.B.I. asked the Government only on 18/20-10-1995, i.e.
much after one month of the passing of order produced by Mr. Sarin showed that
sanction was accorded only on 18-12-1995, i.e. a day earlier to the date fixed. It
was shocking to only after a great persuasion and his personal intervention in the
matter. It was disturbing to note that sanction had been accorded only for offences
Punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 342, 343 and 365 IPC and not under
Sections 364/302/201 IPC despite the finding of the CBI that three persons
namely Vinod Kumar Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh are no more alive. It
also deserve to be mentioned that through the CBI had asked the State to accord
sanction 364 IPC as well, but sanction has been accorded under section 300 IPC
which is a lesser offence triable by a Magistrate. Therefore, by order dated 19 -
12-1995, the Director, CBI was asked to explain this aspect of the matter and
also to show-cause as to why he be not proceeded against under the Contempt of
Courts Act for not filing the challan within one month. The state of Punjab
through its Chief Secretary was also directed to place on record by way of an
affidavit the cause for delay and the reasons for not according sanction forthwith
on receipt of request from the CBI. I had also observed that the Government on
the basis of findings of the CBI given in its report, instead of proceeding against
these police officials, sat over the matter. The case was adjourned for 22-12-1995,
i.e. today. Now a criminal misc. Application No. 21771 of 1995 had been fired
on behalf of S.S. Saini, DIG (Administration) and the application is supported by
an affidavit of S.S. Saini and also affidavit of Mr Anupam Gupta, Advocate.
Prayer made in the application is for transfer of the case from this court. In para
9 of the application, the averment made is not only irrelevant and vague, but has
also no concern with this Court. In reply, the averments made in paras 9, 10 and
11 have been specifically denied and it has been stated that "these allegations are
scandalous contemptuous and brazen attempt to interfere with the administration
of justice. The entire exercise is an attempt to some-how prevent this Hon'ble
Court from dealing with this matter. The averments in these paragraphs are
intentionally and blatently contemptuous of this Court. The applicant appears to
suffer from a pompous delusion of self righteousness. The application appears to
suggest that judicial independence must bow before blackmail. The applicant
cannot be permitted to misuse the process of law." The present application
appears to be another bid to get the case out of my board. When I have said
"another", I mean to say that in the past too, such attempts had been made. One
such attempt was when a retinue of Nihangs who are stated to be close to one of
the police officials swarmed the Court-room, leaving no space for lawyers and
parties concerned. They vacated the Court-room when services of C.R.P.F.
personnel posted in the High Court were requisitioned. If I correctly remember,
this incident was highlighted by the Chandigarh newlines, a local edition of
Indian Express, which reads:
"ENTER THE BLUE BRIDAGE"
There was high drama outside the court-room when the

Saini case was listed for hearing, on Monday. A large number
of Nihangs, dreassed in their colourful robes owing allegiance
to Ajit Singh Phoola, evinced keen interest in the case and
thronged the area.
Phoola who has had a dubious track of record, is

considered close to Sumedh Singh Saini- who is under a cloud
in the case under hearing. The Judge, Justice V.K. Jhanji has
(§)
been busy in a division bench along with Justice M.S. Liverhan
till 2.30 P.M. and the court room was locked from inside. As
soon as it opened, the retinue of Nihangs besides others,
including a large number of Advocates swarmed in quitete the
charin of the Judge. The CRPF was called in to make room for
entry of the counsels for the parties concerned and the media
persons, who were stranded outside due to the rush. The CRPF
personnel cleared the court-room of the "Blue Brigade" and
other civilians to enable the court to proceed."
Again, on a day when I was sitting with Justice M.S. Liberhan in

Division Bench, the then Advocate General, Punjab, Mr. G.K. Chatrath,
came rushing to the court-room and interrupted the Court-proceedings and
submitted the he has some important information to pass on in regard to
-the matter being heard by me in Single Bench. When I asked him to give
information in open Court, he stated that it being sensitive matter, he would
like to convey it in Chamber. When we retired to the Chamber, he came
along with Mr.S. Chattopadhaya A.LG. of Police, Punjab, and said that the
A.LG. of Police, Punjab has some definite information that I should be
careful as there is some danger to my life. A similar exercise was conducted
in Court-room No.I where my Lord the Chief Justice was sitting in
Division Bench. His Lordship was also made to retire to Chamber along
with the Companion Judge and the information which had been conveyed
to me earlier, was repeated to His Lordship. Not only this, after the
assassination of S. Beant Singh, Chief Minister, Punjab, two-three articles
written by Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for Mr. S.S. Saini had appeared
in The Tribune and one had to read between the lines to find that it was a
crude and brazen attempt to over-awe this Court as it had ordered
investigation by the CBI. Dming this time, I had also been receiving
anonymous telephone calls threatening to wash away my hands from this
case and one such caller had gone to the extent of saying that I would be
picked up and thrown furnace like the three had been thrown along with
their car and scooter. I had brought all these facts to the notice of my Lord
the Chief Justice in presence of my brother Judges. The modus-operandi
thus, had been to create fear psychosis. The present application has to be
filed only when this Court did not deter from proceeding with the case.
Order dated 19-12-1995 had been passed because time and again the
Apex Court had noticed that protection guaranteed to the citizens of India
under Article 21 of the constitution of India is being rendered nugatory by
.
indiscriminate acts of the police. My Lord, the Chief Justice of India in
Inder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC-702, has observed "This
Court has in recent times come across far too many instances where the
police have at:ted not to uphold the law and protect the citizen but in did of
a private cause and to oppress the citizen. It is a trend that bodes I for the
country and it must be promptly checked. Hon'ble Faizan, Uddin, J, in
Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC-757, has observed
"It is in common knowledge that in recent times our administrative system
is passing through a most critical phase, particular the policing system
which is not as effective as it ought to be and unless some practical
correctional steps and measures are taken without further delay, the danger
looma large when the whole orderly society may be in jeopardy. It would,
indeed, be a sad day if the general public starts entertain an impression that
the police force does not exist for the protection of society's benefits but it
operates mainly for its own benefit and once such an impression comes to
prevail, it would lead to disastrous consequences." Time and again, it has
been argued in Com1 that the police officials who have been found
responsible for the disappearance of three persons, are innocent. What
about those three persons who have disappeared in thin air?. The fact
remains that till date neither the Punjab Police nor the C.B.I. has been able
to provide any clue with regard to their whereabouts. The responsibility to
maintain the rule of law lies on all individuals and institutions including
the.State. The State is not absolved of its duty only by making payment of
ex-gratia amount of the families of the victims, but is also under a
constitutional mandate to take action against the erring police officials in
accordance with law. The State is answerable to the wives and children of
the victims who were their only bread-earners. This Court had felt helpless
as and when the children and ladies of the victims had come to the Court
to witness the proceedings with the expectation that some information
would be given with regard to existence of their disappeared ones or they
would get some effective order from this Court. As regards the affidavit
filed by Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate in support of application, I wish to
reiterate the observations of P.B. Sawant, j in Sanjiv Datta, (1995) 3 SCC-
619:
"The legal profession is a solemn and senous

occupation. It is a noble calling and all chose who belong to it are its
honourable members. Althougl:i the entry to the profession can be had by
acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as
a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary
conduct both in and outside the Court. The legal profession is different
from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an
individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the
civilized society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the
society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a
model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life.
The society has a tight to expect of him such ideal behavior. ........... If
the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalized. No
®
service will be too small in making the system officient, effective and
credible."
1
At this stage, I also wish to mention the since the matter was considered important
in the State of Punjab, the court-proceedings were being reported by the press
from time to time, but lately in one leading newspaper, the manner in which
court-proceedings are being reported has given an impression that its Editor has
also come under the pressure of the police.
The question thus, remains to be decided is what this court should do in

these circumstances. Counsel for. the families of victims though had contended
that proceedings under the contempt of Courts Act be initiated against Sh. S.S.
Saini and also Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate who has filed affidavit in support
of the application, but I do not propose to pass any order in furtherance of my
order dated 19-12-1995 or to proceed against them under the Contempt of Courts
Act and I would leave it to the petitioners to seek appropriate direction in all
regards from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as in the reply, it has come that
the State of Punjab has filed S.L.P. impugning the order dated 14-9-1995 of this
Court.
Ashish Kumar too has filed S.L.P. and writ petition as well as a Caveat, and a
mention is likely to be made to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India in the first week
of January, 1996 for listing of the S.L.P.
Pursuant to order dated 19-12-1995, affidavits have been filed by the

State of Punjab as well as by C.B.I.
Before concluding, I wish to comment that the Constitution has

entrusted the task of administering law to the Judiciary whose view on the subject
is final and binding on all till it is changed by Higher Court.
Court's verdict has to be respected not by the authority of its reason but always
by reason of its authority, regardless of the fact that it may cause hardship to a
particular party.
The matter is adjourned sine-die and shall be taken up as and when

an order in this regard is received from the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Order Dasti on payment.
December 22, 1995 V.K. Jhanji
Judge
····•1'/.. ...·.> '' . \~•;u:c> ' :-~~-i . ·l'
/
@) -.... i
1£
;;;rrftt{-rter
CHAHGE Sffl<:I~T
;;;;;r~;~~;f'~~..~rJ::i~~~~~~~;~''.~':· ~~~:;,~:~l~"'""i~,,~~t'""
;r .'~
:~·'r~~~~f~~~ ';!.~~~~~~;::
t!{:~h't!JJJ:~ :~~~:·:.~:~:\~::. ·:;,,,;,n·<.C••• ~~:':.~:i~;p~~:;,:·~= --~::-:::::
cl ~~~~~~t~~;~~~;;~;l?:1'·tt ·
~~ lfi~~i "-;,,.~-'.: ''r"'*"'!b~!:'" ;.
, ....... .._.,-.,..
j~~-~~:~~~
.,_. . . ----~r·-~-·-; --·-- -- .....

--~-----,..._._:.-
~
~-- ~-
-'l~ ~~~!ii~i;;;;: --·ri~;-~:;;;::'2~11-g~.~-::;;'i/-i .:;:: :!~ ""''°
·1~~~~:~~i~' -
--·-.- _ _.__,,
~=----'. --:--y:--~··---::---.---
~ c~~;. ~i;;? ~~~~-~a~J. e"cf:ose'3-. ~· H!.\.~4 .u/~.. i2~ ·I.?::· ::./".·Se.;: ••. ~·.
. .;
:r no\;•DIG(~;,}, Of<> \
XP, -~nj{Sb, -C~~- j
.!
!I
I ~~~;~~1i~~!t~r~~1~~s~",6
~ ·n.aryaoe. at .cflall.-:.$:~.~=!l v_ide -itS -~
.. ·
~
~
~
2,
.;:µr)l.
srx·i
,
-~:;:~~~~L...:.aef ~.t:fo~i ·.:;~d~!~
'=-~~- the'Jl. .$P1. il.34~~na..
·3. =..,;;>..r'.. 5.h.·ri···~~"'J:i'°·
1iJ~~,Y.hPo~~ s..~o! .t
'
i
I
j
i~§~~~~i\"
; 1'«?• in "Pr.g.i:1 v~ce:i• ..,,,. .fxl.OI\>
.~A.·.
J UK~!~~· A
~1'iar:a~. · ,
4.; ;J;lS!'r.• 3JtrJ:i!li~J..<: !

-C?ti~~-. ":t'!:w~rJ.,' ·.tllll.· :t..?~"i· 1
SHO,c. pS Xobi~l:i1:
~:?'li:an~ ~~ Ot~s: I j ·illega.1.1.,,.. al{~~ ,i·G·?-6:·
~r.}"~·o-....-n __ - f : ':>'} !J.iihi2ria'. .Pi:ill!.c;
I . .,.t 1.~.;i~;. s.,,.,:.:.•
!
I i !
\ ::~~s::-"~lJa~~
. th"at. ~;~ ~~;!::-:<.:
I
' ' ~ .~:~~~~!1~.:'~

t
_r_~-- ---- - _,__ ···---- ~~?~:~~:~'i\::'.:~c!.".<,

~, .···:·_- ... -~..---~- .. ·-· ··---~~ :~.;;::ii;<c;.~ .. ···."- ~.,.,..'
'·. IJ_"t<_..,~ .•
~~~'~· ~.,., .... ,_._.,-.~·"··.•7•,"'·':~···:o...:i-:1''-'
w,;,,,,,,.~~ i;,~:Jc~~ a"'wm

J,
.;.:_.,_._;.-,..-...
..........,.,~--. --~.-
~··
,.~--'--·---- :- :··
,, Nu rl"'·-~•.•·''' •- ,_, """-', •-N _, o •~-'"'"'" M •• -NVV.<~·-··•• ,.~OM0rlN ..,-«!-~'•''>>
c;\tJ ~·.···
•
·,
-------.,-.-----···········-···········
"\
1(·~
i
!
~ -
~--,.z:....:: ___
2. Ip.'.l~s.:..·1-;-=.~i.o:·, J:i...s...::·.:.-~-?.d._ t..~·-~ S.~:~::. {;~g ·:"""et.;..· ~-99.4 tp:J!J.!"IO.~ 1''?~~... ::::.1::-i $ ..~.... .S..?._·c>:1~·. ;;~3.··;•
II
W'-fo,s A$_:.!~' .:..s· 3-er:.3:<."::~· .5,J.~;.:~-.. -q;._ .P,oA;~~~,! .:..•.i..!.f'.~.::;n:i~ .3.r1r!. .s .• S.. ·S;t:¢Im ;...:;;.:;. ·i.~.'-!..s:;. J..s :5~?~.::.·t-:~!:.?:1::-;:-·;-~
~.f.:~/~J..7F:~· -~~x!!~.i.:i:""~" $~~::: .;,;.;.r.~:~j f!:;,-~;:.y,h· v -\:-;;~~~-~ca: -:a!!:~ ;r~s.~c-~~-~ i':..~ :;:5.".lii .:!;~;j ~r?;<: ·::.t .;:,~; i_::'!:·
-.s~~~~=?:{l f~:::--::ai ~.:::;r.t. ;~:i,jhi;'!:_;4_ -~:7-'-t_:·5fu7k., ~~1.~lr':~,h.~n..2·:-?'·l:.-:~~-i·~d-S p....~t;~.d i;:X· J:-~ti?~.:.=~":- ~ ,:_-;,;::i·=-i·
~d.~~= 5.110 =-i :?O"l).ce? 5t:<J:t.!_j;·i-.Kot:"1",~l?:·~ !:.lld1\i.a~t'3:. .,
·3. .5hr?-. :). .5.:_w Sain~: :...·.!:s· .fc=l\O:):~U ~t:-3'i:::i..§d ~-.e1~t;i-Qns '\.!':~ri -·).~$· ·cE"Cs~. :·:Jt:1~:l:v~s ;_'!.~~z;i;r, ~h.r::
I t~a=~r.de-r 3~itl},: smt..~ ·~a·e::;;;,:.:.s;t:li ~:i.;,.:i;~ :·gro~.i.e.t.~r ~: ;'1fs··~~.f.-i Mti~~~., ~":i~'"!'l:a~a: 5¥01ll.n9.-_.-i:i. ·.::i:.{.;
·i.l ~ai~·( ;.~ehkl"-2$ . .::.r~ '-'4o;-~~ ·vi~~.d·ic~"t-/ii -~-::.~..it~e. ~~ci:-..;.s tae#,. -~'s _J..· =-;;_;.;.~:.f~ o! :i~::JS<" .~:-~:~~~sf::;(i
i
I
se.;..~X-41 c.:-iinint.l c.a2es. .,.....;?;.=,~- r-e.g.'.!:si:..t;.-aj .~i;"~.!-.nS.'t t1::,e, pi:"c;:o:::-;!.~~o::-s/;,)~.~'i4:.::::::~- of
!.:1.2:<.Hl:i.-~1td- .!:l.!:t::ing t.he ·t.et~uz~ b:f· ~·· 3-a~cli ..
·-:.4/s ¥:!.::!;. ~;i~':;.:.~~
.20:::~ ::::=:~~E::::~:~!~:~::::~::~:~:::E::::~:e~~~:3!~:~:!:::~~L~::i"!:
l
i .
:::e::~~:i:~7:~~ ::~!~::,;~·":::,~:~a;e;::::a;;&:::,::t··:;~:~~~L=~:./:·';::~;. :1'
il~··
I Jn
g
~
i
I
::ii~r:i~:::s.::2:::::=:~7;::::~1rz~::~:;::;:~~~
,.t;;d~i!"a.ii- ?;'.lliCe·: .h.ead:~ t.y. -~.n~pr • .?.a-=;:;.,":tjit'..'.S.il.lqf:i~ s·~P.. -~·=-~.!I~ PO~ri~·.~. ;.,~;~~~ ~~~ ~e~i...~~~C:F ~
,,
__ ~-
..
I Ra_~;·:eh S.i~$:h~ 3-:/9!.;~ i<.~j~:tu:a Ro~·,.,, ~d!"1':Sn?1-. ;?:-nd." te~:.au~f.~'stt:i"SS. .:<:!m~t ·:s/~·~h-;i ~:!.;t_~G'.".si:..;;n
·in ·-:::h~ii-·c_;,;~t.~;(.
:.,:..i~h:,-.';.T!i;.. ..
?=1 ··F·::b~ 2:3,~ri,
i.·b.;;_t '-!{-i-;;:1?'!
197,•f ·~r!i ~d?li"c-,..;.ti"on· ~.f:is/ w.~·..$-3. :~.!·:i:,:s.-~.-:-:-~·~. ~'..:t:.Y .=~~;:~·~.::::;r~-:::·.;,
.~h5;'3;:l?~· =.or ~.:::s.:a:s~ Of .\!ih!.Si:i f{.~.r ~.;::. ~.:l"-l·~c.~· .!.Jd nrit··p:ro._tt~:.,;;s)"1i~"; -~-~.~~::-. i.n .6~~·-::·-"~--=-t:: ==-=·
f~\!.:..i~~ :;/~ .~~'t,T.£~!\·f{i~~~. ;1.<::? fj..!.~ . .:i ~t-J.:t.i~~ ·:.?~ >~¥z. ..~~ !;i~=~-~ ~·.1::, 1 =::?
"
C?}i?{ .J"Uszi~~ -.:,:~ .tte Hi.gn.'c:>ur.t.~·~h.=.n~~;;;:ch. ~:t, hi.S· r.::s~~~f.~:·~-~;?.~!. . :=,0 i~~=~i.~1 ~k""~ -:;-;a p_ . :t4
.;:-:::.i~;.y:L.. ~ ~ .: .. /- ... ~.
J-·--,:·
- ·~·· j
~~
•••
N~ m! - f is.t~' ,ll
· AM' n~u
Sah1i i\·lnt.01~s and .1m1y1,~I thal necessary :ortkT,; hp'. 1m~sc•.d "" ;i~ ll)· pr~,t~:ct
.
him from. illegal
..
.dclrn!inn. 1h;1t Jnay be dlix.L(':d by Li1dlfoma Police ;u1d th<\I Shri l\,~hiNl1 Kun1~tr be. ordenxl to
.. . ,,,."'" '
lw rt'lc,:as<•d llfr\IJ\"iitb. Fi1rther tlw police be difo.,-,\ed not Lli har:c~s dw: fa1nily nmm\.lt~ts nnd t.he
aJlplirn.111. Hlin'bk C:hief Jvsticl" asHignbd lhe m<illl>T lo lion'blc'!Vlr.Justke A.K.Nehru wl10
on.k:n·d lirr i~s1w of' Nu1iu~ l<> Lhe i\dvucatc Gc~ncr;il Prn:lab for 4.:1.!H and i1l lite mcanwhilt• it
l.11dhfam1,,, In• ~Jl!lu)d bp l'dim!l1'd on hail ~ul~icc.t. to Llw sali:faqiun oJ' llw arrcsling oilicer.
.:i.
('(lit rl aJ l Aldhimm Qll 2:512/9.4 Q)l h~<J1;tll' orAshfah .Kum;i,r, sul>i11itt¢d 1J1(" 1·eport c:m .r.::i.u·~ in t.he
1'.1111.rt 1l1<'J'i' qt·riyii~g llw .:w1•csto!'A~hi.~h i\.1rrHar ~/o Ra tan Singh W;.il.ia <J.nt.I {;(\leg'(iri~:ally stated
1.l1crr•i11 that Asl1ish Kun1ut was nqtw¥u1tld in Uw FlR.No. 2~ ofl \)f}•:[., ·i-:i.Qwev1~r.; A.$hish Kumar
wa~Jt(lt'r·:;h1:1wn in have JJ('('.ll lirreslc<:d op 2,'3.£J+by tlw polkc anti. W<ts [>toc\1,1<'.¢(~ i1cfort· the
lktk;t M:il;;iNh:al\'; Ludhl:ui<1 ..qn· 3,3,S)•L , A~hish Knmar was 1·e1uauded (0. 11qliq>nrs1:ody f\11· tipe
thiy \~t1\JW:llf··1,.11>dut~t~dbdore Lho. J)u1y.Magi$ll'<tLr:~ I.A1dhia11a un ~h::t!J4: whv l~m~11<;1¢~f i\.:*i~h:

'.. • •• • :' • • I '•' ' '. ••• • I
Kn111::1f
.
!fl 'Ji1,db~iitl.t'ustedylil\t A$h~shd~llll'ltir w1i.i ,YYr1,111~(lil.ly.
'
cktaim~d· in .pcJm1<~1{'.1.ii1:1\r;1il}~:
., ., . . , ··.,_.
o,u:~1.1i.~~ ')
,,.,ii;· l;(1<'1"'kt>ir1:·.lr; iiw J:t.il ;1t.~:.11(lhf~1~l\:~ir1 1);3.\H wJ1~·F1,· A~1,]~1~ Ku1111n'"wf1~ .:ic.lnirtt1~d •~C~,3o l!M
an~l li.(11;1;(\y n•l(~;!-:qcd Oil ba.ilpursu~mJ io :~lw ,Ul'tltri:x j.,lt. f1.,3,\)t} 111'(.;JM Ludhh1na. l:ihd R\l-htil
~ir1gh V\'.tlli:t)~tlhc:'r urVino~ &A.'ibisb ~its a.djnitted)ii QMC Hospital, Ludhinn<l whei'(~ he: clkd
.... .
'1!i .· t>)J JH, · ~hd .VI 1H:Jt1 KtU11~ii' );/~; ~~li~~.t\I '>)]i11,l'h ··Wa.tia likd ;.uHxthcr .cfoulb<11 p:~G>t:il>J1 ji1 tht·
Ilt.luxhli: High C:uut-l ai. t.!11iii1tlig<irh t~ll 5.i!H, c::;ta:ting,1lwrc.in tlhit Sfo:I 8ume~l S.ii1!{h :;\iiW;: .SSP,
J .11dlii;i1mh;tditiurcd gn~t~Lill a:g:iil1sUh~ parln.-'.rs ql' l\il(s !);1i11i Motdt'K un a:n:o.unltfftheir !hmifr
3
di$jlLlk. The· pt~titloncr WU!fo beljigharassl'\d aw his p<iren;ts had ;given .a])t)\il 4:U \akhs w Mh5aini
:Mutoi:~ and the $$1' want;ed the petitioner tq. ~tldhim
' '
in implicaling fyl/S Sixini MQtprs l~lt( ori his
. ~
rl'li.1s;i.I tt.1 do so; he w;ti: ·1:hre<1~ened willi illeg<~l tkt(•,ntii:m an<l liqi.1idation. Hi~h :Qourt grantf.d
h1lt~dm n~lldk~is 1m1.yed :111d notice w~: Issued to :-.>hri S~S. $n,inl, SSP, 1u<lhia1i<i l(1 qe. p;·i;.s:ent in
Co~1i'H>tt n.:~.M. 8hri Vi noel Kuinar atteirded the. l~txites of his' father t;>11 $,3.94 atLu<lhia~1a
11mh~r· ptilicc;· p~~~ortprovided
' .
m\der orders of.B.igh Cqw;pmd ret11ri1ed .((:) :c,:ha1}tligarhs<\me day~
' . .
On 7.3.M.' at. night Shri P<u:a1:r\jit .!:lit1gl1, SHO f•'qqtl Pqint, Ludliia1w alo11gwith
o.
ltk sf.all' l~H"tiibly pk.ked ttp k~ramod Kumar s/o l{atau. Singh Walia, R~jesb· .($ f;hotu (thc.ir
. ..
l'nn1i !he resicknt'.c MVinod K.utnar and R;1jinucr
'
Kulm.tr,
.
brothcr-i11-hiw ol'Vi1wd (tlso·; fl·om.liis
-
'fhe.y wc:.r,e w1"<ntgl'ully dcl11ii1ed by SHO Ptmirujit Singh <iL VS 17t'>cal .l'oil1t,
7.
Ludhimm.
On ~.3.94, in. thc1l1orning sf'lO Pm.·amj'itSing;bwith hisstri.II forril~ly pjckedup Snit.
Amar Kaur, m\'.>l.her orVi110d Kumar .and det~1l11e.d,·her u\~o .aulie: ~·us! police ~L<"\liop. illegally.
1'ht~ abow fads were broughJ to the notice of the Hon~bk High Goort at
B. '
Cham-liga.i'h tl)rough a petition dated-8.3,94· ftlt.d by Vinod K11m~1rwhkh was numbered <\s Cr!.
tvlisr.; No. :1G~;l/9'1-. HighC01,1rt: issued .nqli~~e to the 1\.dvm:t1.te Gei1.ernl Puifri~b li'.>r.9.3.94 ;:1ml
dinwlcd tl1q,~ ~hr. deknu.es mentioned .in the applicaficm lie prvclucc-0 tomorrow (~,3 ..94} al 10.00
Al\1.,.)\ll .~1f tlwni and Smt. Am;ir I(iturwcrt!rde•W~d at aboLi(5.8Ul JVl on H.~.94,.
1
Pmm1:ji~ l:ihigh ~ts to why they be n:ot proce¢de(J ~111der Gonlt?.mpt or Court Act . A bailable
_t ·-•.
tn. ·Jnve:stigiilipn furthei· ctisckiscd that O.n JO.:t.91h ancithi.::r c:ll.se FIR No. 44·/94
dat.cd 1. tl.(1.•94 wits. rt~gistercd •\t PS Kotwali against Vi nod I).um:u-, Ashish Kun1nr elc;, on a le.t,t.('.r
dt. it:tD'~ ~ifM1\ Krisha.ii Jhimar s1;arl11;i, Chief Manag~'I', AllalHtJ)<\d l3a1\k,. Oloc:k 1'ower
dNails oJl:he ~:c.ol1,11t~ in. which Shri V1n<:>d l~ui'l!~rwa,~· tlw .guarn.ntor .f>t. i11 whk:h Mis $·afoi
Motors w~we..tlw tq1st~es.
n.
; . C:<wt:t m1 l L$.~l4' m1d ~noved a petition stJbro~%ing· therein 01al V!nod Ktm1ar •'t!i. A~hj~h Kun~<ir
,•vere h:ih(tm\.l <'.ri111inals '& h<).Ve tlcfraud(!'.d .a111ottnL which rltns il)to hikhs <l rupe('.s. For
pmyer wns. mat!~ lv gmnt.pe1'mjssion lo. arrest tf1em in. lhe c<1se FUZ Nv. '1419~1- fr:gi~t~red· ~~ga~nst
th~~m <m lQ.. 3.~l•l-, The 1m"lttei' W;!\S lixecl for 12.3,.9'} a11d then.(m 12.3,94 a.djournt.d le) l5.3Sl4;
12. On 15'.3.9!-l:, Shri S.S. Saini, the lhen SS.P, U:idhiana; S.S. Sandhu, $P Ludhiai1a,
Nachh;ittar Singh, DSP' and 1>a.ramjit Singh,

~ ..
SHO, Fo;al l'oint, Ludhiantt wilh st1borcli1mte \."
i
polilw pN'!>qnn~l we1·e pre~en~ in the Higl~ Coi11·t Chandigarh <>1; b¢haff ol'n:.spondents as tbe
malte1: w>u> lix¢d for beiu1ng... Shri Vined Kumar an cl bis bi-.o.Lher f\,shish· Kumar and Prai~~ocl
Kuannr Wl~n· tlfoo pre.sent ·on behalLof pcliiion(;',rs. On that day. Lhc nmttcr wa~ hcanJ and. the
order <JI' lh.;: i11terim bnil \Vas col1firmt~<l &, Vinod Ku1m\I' was grant¢cJ anticipatory bail in 'FIR
,.,
Jl•"esen<:~' of' J)SP N~WJlliatt'.tr Si11gh ;tnd;S,f:L Sandhu. SP, gave a notice to Vinod Kttmar tojoiJl
i11v~:stig,itioJ,,p11 l7 .:?.~M· in P\S.C\ FIR No; -22/!)<i,, _i>$ Fo~:al Po inc AL ~hat.time: Vi nod Ktim~lr had
pla'.IH 'to~ go }(l ~ttdhiana for gcltfog tl~e. ashes ofhis l~\tllel' .in11nq·1a~da( Hardwar.. Therel91i.:-, he
req1w~tetl not to .<'«tll him oq that date. The11 he asked his brothers Ashish.Kumar and Pi'.a1~od
Kiunar ~b W;a:iL for l1im a~ Oba1;digarh,,\li1)¢d Ktmmr alqn1:,i;.viJh his driver Muk.htitµ·,Singh left ·
High CirnMprernises jn his maruti c~r no. PB-lO~PGH driv~n by d1'ive~ Muki~tiar Stng\i, Shri
$$. San~lhu,l:iPl,..4~lhiana. ;;u;;c01npanie,d hirnin lli$·ci)r, A,shishKurnar, ii,1fotlne-d Ashok K,µqiar
\:.,
{Bro~}w~~i11~ .law q.f~.in9d), ~o W~it. f9t: \liti:P'~,.~~~l~l\!,1:t·~t ¥r~1lhttloll grQ\.it1dJ,,4r.lhiana ror-c9Jl~1:th1iS,
• '1 ,. , ·'' ···!T:· .. ·· :.:?_~:· ..;:.::·· ' .~ .
tht' 11~bc-J:1.oftl}1:11i:' l~ite, lhthel' l\~ per ai·ra.flg~tj{&d~·mutl\'i. l)y Yfood l\i1mi~v l}~Pt~ leaving th¢ Hi~h
L3.
gtl1\('-. l\i Vfrwd

·..
l(i:111utd.~
. .
hi..>us.e 011 bi!i•.. soootev at Lu_clhi;;1ua.
, ' '..
A [lQ~e,
..
9f'ppJicerm;t1'.l
. .
·'.'A'i'\ll ilfr~.~dy
tle1iJ9ye,d.
.
in tilt! 'vidnity. ofVh1qd J(um~u•'s
. ~,
house .and
.. .
on seeing
.,
the l)glke p.tmicm.ne'.\;
. -
Ashok. '
Kmmw t'ri~d tf> slip away frorrt ther~ !)tithe was t:.h~ed by a polir,e par4y in two poliC:c vehic\es
and since ·then his whe.reaboui:s are J}Qt \o1own. As regards \liuod Kumar and h'is c!river
•.. .
M.\.1khti<i:r: Singh nothing. c()uld be Jie;atcl all:er. they 1dt Cl~andigarh for Luclhi:ana in the car
14. As 1mlhi11~ coµkl he kl)own abt>ut th~~ whereal)0\11.S or Vinotl KµJl'Utr, Mukhtial'
·or Ash.i~I~ l\:umar in the Hoi1'ble High C611tt al Chandigad1 staling Lherein the <i,H:>,resaid fac~
with,~i i1l'~yer that orders for the produ~ticm of the aforest@ th1·ec~ perso11s l:ieyu~$ed and pofi<'.e.
1m.1.l:ectfo11 be. given to the other mcri1be\is of the forn~ly .. 011 ~his petition, notk.c Jo the Advocate
\__ ,/ Gt::nJTiii;'' 1:rL111j;ib was issm~d for 17 .$.S)i):. , Qni 17.)$,9',t;. the AG Ptn~lab .appear~:<l and ·0!1 U:1c~
instnit\fions or Mr. S.S. Bn;ndl~u SP subm:ittetl that Vi1,ml l\u1m\r had gone in ·ca,r wh.b Sri
Samq1 ttto ltS. !\,(!twall; Li1dhhuui, as· Vfood 'l~u1)~<(1: wm)ted t() 1.d I the SNO- abci~!l (htf. g\st ofthe
o~cl11t J)U,..\':;e~I f)y•t;11~<High C~urt ~u1d '.<!,l~o wari~ed ln join invt~slig_~tliyn. Oil 19.3.94: instead of
.. .. .. . .
17.::!JN, }l,~ lhrtJierAti\ted,that<ifter u1fen:1nii1g !)H(), \li110d K.urniu· le!'t the Policf. Station and
·1:h1in~ii.Jle1· 1 .$br~ S,8. $andhu,$l' <i($o l~f1:. '£his petition w;1.~ fre";aJ¢d t.o be habeas CJ.irpus•writ iind
t!in~1;:tfo111i were •is$~ted to the State ofPunjih thi::ou&hA<• lpr trnrli1g the mil;Si11g pc;r$cjns .by
l!.l.3.u+, Thc:realter, U1e ma~ter remained aclj~~rpBc( from ~hne· to ..time till 2·4.:3.94 ~i1d tht~
\_, .
l;;i.1dhia~t~1.Pc;lice, who wai; entrusted thi.s task.by ~he SJi\te G9v,t., ct)µld not luJ.':ate th~ 4!,~ye three::
111i~siug perscms; Tl'1e~·eafl:er, the,matte.1· was tnufsfetrc:d to tbe C.BL
1.5.
]}atcl1ed by S/Shri S.S.Snii1i, S.S. Sa11dhu, Faramjil ,Si11gl~, B.C. Tiwari :mt! oth~rs .~n1km1wn,
the two pei·sons,. namcly,'Vinod.1\umar and Mukhtiar Sinsh were abducted frorr1 Chandigarh in
Lbt'. r.venin~ or JS.3.91· by Slll'i S.S. Strndhu and other Ul)it;lentilied police per!lCmiiet Ashok
J\.unulr was abc,lucted fr()lU m:ar the hous~ ofV(nqcl l\,\,tl)1::;\r !\I: Ludhii.1na late iu the: 'eveitin_g of
15.~'-91:·., All the aforesaid three perS<:ms were !ast~er,11 nlive tm I :i.UH in the c6ri'1p:my of the
· polke pe,i'S()nnd and :;i nee (lien all the ;\foresaid three pet':loi1s <We untrac¢abk f.1.nd their
. l(i. Thus there is a

1
prim~~ .fhpie•c;:ase:.est~blishlng .that. $1.ShrLS,S. Saini, S.$.,$an.c;lhu,
Rnr~y1~jit Shigh and B.C. Tiw;i,ri have c9t11mitl;e:d Q{l:(!nc,e~ pli11ishabJ~; u/s 120~ tlw 342; 34:3 &
•:~ti+ Wd an.ti Scc.342,31}3, 3611 JPC;·
17. , · The Hcm'l:ile High Oollrt of Pm1jab vklecits order ~l;ttc,d 14/9/95 had directec! the
Govt.. of l?~ir\i~b w accord .sa11cJ:ic:iti (~fo, m"B~c~tion, a~i1i.st i,be' accus.ed polke o.llk~rs·
,' ,<,
'l'
.)
r.
\
·.·~
·'
·(. Ap;:1;r\,lfogly, Lh!.', Govt. pf Puqjllb vi\:!¢' qrd~r daLed l8/l2/95. !ttx:o1·<lecl sai\etion ;(qr prosecm1io11
9[ S l{?.hri SS Saini. S.$ pmidhu, Pa~an~iit~illgh'm1d<l30 ~rl~!\t'i U Is ·197 Crl'O fqr tln.•. o(fon\:GS
p~11Ji~h;}lllt-.'lJlsJ20U J'/W'34~, 365 <J.1i4'$e(;~ 342 &,.30~ I)!q,
rn.
Vs Vi\wsJ I<.\1\n~r) ht th~. S1,1pre~e.Col1rt.i;hallenglttg the powere ot kllgh Col!rtAo dlr¢ct the
&tat~. ~i)\it/l'o. :~lt;.(\j)~q s,nncticm: ·h1 :~h.ib~\ <att• .h1,~rim>.of~l¢,r w~ pnsiled 9.l~.. 2~.(. 1196. al'id
i, · ' . '' ,',' ., I' • I
fr,
~·tn1i1>li:.\ll~'.e ~olht~ san1¢, th~ Govt. gl:,;t>fo~«tl;> ¥.corded rl'.e:sl'I Silllt:litin lhr tlw prci$equti~m oJ th~~;
\..... ~ai~I ;1µi;-.11sed pc1lk:t~ ollkl!\r.S for the o(le1-rc¢s t)'/ s l 20"B IPC. r/ w Sec.M2, .343' tµ)cl 365 lPC m~cl
s~~c, :~4i, ~4:3 and ':3$i) Jl?C in this (:ase. I
IQ. ":niere<il'ter, Cri01i11~l Appeals No:.431-439 «;if 2000 and 440 of 2000.by ;S~a.te·of
J.\n~ah &.Ashish K\111').a:r were filcdfo theH01;'ble Sllpre111e. Court of r11d\a copccruiµg ~he issues
rehuing to the. sections unde:t which the prosecut:i<m be launched. While disposing off the$e
~lJ>pt~nls~ t:hc Hon'ble Supren1e Cot.1rt of India r<:'.li;:rred to 1Jie contentions or· Addl.Solicit:or
G<;nra1 or India urg11ing for tbe CBI ni1d ·observed,, " Two rival contc11ti(H)li huv~ bec11 r\'i.spcl
bdo1~, 11s.h1· 1'.Cspl1ct of the. sale\ sanctioi1. fo·st is :thal no sanction .shop\d have been accorc!ed by
· tl \e State Govt:.rhpwnt i\t all in respect.of those offe,\l(:es. The o th(:r ·is th1;1t. sanction a(:confo~l ·wa;;
loo. in~Lilli1,~le.pt .<i.~ the. St<;\te Govet1mrc11t i:ho1,tlc.I bave grantt'.tl s<uJctfo11 in respect. of olbe1·
oni.~IU'.l:'<'i !ncl!idipg 8e.c.. 3!:14 of the IPO.'" The l-1.Qt'l'bk Supreme Qoprt In~ nol el{f>l'esscd MY
· opinion <:m ·s.uc.h .ccmt9n.tions as the matters. can .be· rui~ed bdor!! the Tda.l. court at appropriate
2Q. . The. afqres~id focts .Ru1~ circttmstanr.es c-.slablished that S/Sh.ri SS Saini, SS
S•~ndhu) P~u·amjit Singh and UC 'l~iw*i;i, have, comn1ittcd olfonccs punishaple. U/s 12<i-B r/w
'8
1
(,' 3+2,
•mcI ;16f}IPC and Sec. 342, 3{3,$64lPGari<lforwhich all ofthem .u·eliable to be tried
21.· lt is, therefore, pr.aycd that the accused. persons_, namCly, S/Shri $.S. Saini,
t1~1 law.
(D:.P. Singh)
Supdt. of J'()liee;
SPE/C))l/New Delhi
,: ·)·
, ......
r ...
. ... 1
"
:r
'
l!.J
~
'='
~
'i
""'<=
CHARGE SHEET
~
u. Police Station CBI I SIU. V/SIC.II Distt. New Dehi Charge Sheet No. RC.2(S)94-SIU, V /SIC.II dt.
0
b:: 30.6.200
B
l.!J
c::::.... Name, address and occupation of complainant: Addl. Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Punjab & Haryana,
r-
ll) Chadigarh
~
t- Name and addresses I Name and addresses I Property (including I Name and addresses I Charge or
of accused persons I of accused persons I weapons found with I of Witnesses information, name
sent up for trial I not sent up for trial I particulars) of of accused and
whether in custody I whether arrested or I where, when and by circumstances
or on bail or I not arrested whom found and connected with it in
recogmzance 1including whether forwarded concise details and
absconders (show to Magistrate under what section
absconders m red of law charged?
ink)
~ 1
1. Shri Sumedh
2 3 4 5
As mentioned in the I As mentioned in the I Case RC.2(S)/94-S-

Singh Saini, the list enclosed. \list enclosed. \ SIU V/SIC.II dated
then SSP, Ludhiana 18.4.94 u/s 120B
now DIG (Admn.), IPC r/w Sec
o/o DGP, Punjab, 342/365 IPC and
Chandigarh Sec 342 & b 365

IPC, was registered
2. Shri
under the orders of
Sukhmohinder
High Court of
Singh Sandhu the
Punjab and Haryana
then SP, Ludhiana
at Chandigarh vide
3. Inspector Shri its order dated
Paramjit Singh, the 24.3. 94 passed m

Crl. Misc. No. 4035
~
then SHO, PS Focal of 1994, No. 1924
Point, Ludhiana of 1994 and others

in Misc. No. 3052-
4. Inspector Shri
M of 1994 alleging
Balbir Chand
therein that Ashish
Tiwari, the then
Kumar was illegally
SHO, PS Kotwali
kept in wrongful
Ludhiana and others
detention from
unknown
24.2.94 to 2.3.94
and that he was
again kept in the
police custody
despite orders of
CJM, Ludhiana
remanding him to
Judicial custody.
Shri Pramod
Kumar, Rajesh @
Chottu, ali and
Mukhtiar Singh
were also illegally
taken in police
custody by
Ludhiana Police in
the night of 7.3.94.
Smt. Amar Kaur
was also taken in
police custody on
8.3.94. It was
further alleged that
Vinod Kumar
(Brother of Ashish
Kumar) Mukhtiar
Singh and Ashok
Kumar (a relative of
Vinod Kumar) had
been kidnapped by
police officials of
Distt. Ludhiana in
retaliation to the
order passed by the
I
I
High Court on
15.3.94 granting
anticipatory bail to
Vi nod Kumar &
others.
---
2. Investigation disclosed that during Feb., 1994 to June,
1994, Shri S.S. Saini, IPS was posted as Senior Supdt.
Of Police, Ludhiana, Shri S.S. Sandhu was posted as
Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Shri Paramjit
Singh was posted as Inspector of Police and SHO at
Police Station, Focal Point, Ludhiana and Shri Balbir
Chand Tiwari was posted as Inspector of Police and
SHO at Police Station Kotwali, Ludhiana.
3. Shri S.S. Saini was having strained relations with his

close relatives namely Shri Narender Saini, Smt.
Menakshi Saini, Propritor of Mls Saini Motors,
Ludhiana dealing in sale of Maruti vehicles and
adopted vindictive attitude towards them. As a result of
his animosity, several criminal cases were registered
against the proprietors I partners of Mls Saini Motors
Ludhiana during the tenure of SS Saini.
4. A case FIR No. 22 dated 22.2.94, uls 406, 420, 465 I

120B IPC was registered at PS Focal Point, Ludhiana,
allegint therein that Mls Saini Motors, dealers in Maruti
Cars in Ludhiana were selling cars at premium. The
complainant in this case was Shri Jm·nail Singh slo
Mukhtiar Singh. The firms owned by Rattan aaaaa
Singh Wallia and his wife Smt. Amar Kaur, parents of
Vinod Kumar and Ash ish Kumar, had deposited several
lakh rupees with Mls. Saini Motors Ltd., Ludhiana
during the course of business transaction. This amount
was paid through the branch of Allahabad Bank located
at Clock Towar, Ludhiana by raising a loan from the
bank. On 24th February 1994 after having come to know
abut these financial dealings of the Waliaas, Ludhiana
Police headed by Inspr. Paramjit Singh, SHO, PS Focal
Point, raided the residence of Rattan Singh, B-1/9/4,
Rajpura Road, Ludhiana and took away Ashish Kumar
S/o Shri Rattan Singh in their custody. On Feb. 25th,
1994 an application was moved before the Duty
Magistrate, Ludhiana, for release of Ashish Kumar but
Police did not produce Ashish Kumar in the Court at
Ludhiana. Shri Vinod Kumar s/o Rattan Singh also filed
a petition on 27.2.94 before Hon'ble Chief Justice of
the High Court, Chandigarh, at his residence stating
therein that the police under the instructions of SSP
Ludhiana was harassing all persons having dealings
with M/s. Saini Motors and prayed that necessary
orders be passed so as to protect him from illegal
detention that may be effected by Ludhiana Police and
that Shri Ashish Kumar be ordered to be released
forthwith. Further, the police be directed not to harass
the family members and the applicant. Hon 'ble Chief
Justice assigned the matter to Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.
Nehru who ordered for issue of Notice to the Advocate
General Punjab for 4.3.94 and in the meanwhile it was
ordered that in case the Petitioner was wanted in any
case registered at PS Focal Point, Ludhiana, he should
be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the
arresting officer. The said petition was treated as Crl.
Misc. No. 3052(M) of 1994.
5. Shri Paramjit Singh, SHO Focal Point with regard to

the application moved in court and Ludhiana on
25.2.1994 on behalf of Ashish Kumar, submitted the
repmi on 1.3.1994 in the court there denying the arrest
of Ashish Kumar s/o Ratan Singh Walia and
categorically stated therein that Ashish Kun1ar was not
wanted in the FIR No. 22 of 1994. However, Ashish
Kumar was later shown to have been arrested on 2.3.94
by the police and was produced before the Haka
Magistrate, Ludhiana on 3.3.94. Ashish Kumar was
remanded to police custody for one day and was
produced before the Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana on
4.3.94 who remanded Ashish Kumar to judicial custody
but Ashish Kumar was wrongfully detained in police
custody and he was later sent to the Jail at Ludhiana on
5.3.94 where Ashish Kumar was admitted at 3.30 PM
and finally released on bail pursuant to the orders dt.
5.3.94 ofCJM Ludhiana. Shri Ratan Singh Walia father
of Vinod & Ashish was admitted in CMC Hospital,
Ludhiana where he died on 5.3.94. Shri Vinod Kumar
s/o Ratan Singh Walia filed another criminal petition
the Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh on 5.3.94,
stating therein that Shri Sumed Singh Saini, SSP,
Ludhiana harboured great ill against the partners ofM/s
Saini Motors on account of their family dispute. The
petitioner was being harassed as his parents had given
about Rs.48 lakhs to M/s Saini Motors and the SSP
wanted the petitioner to aid him in implicating M/s
Saini Motors but on his refusal to do so, he was
threatened with illegal detention and liquidation. High
Court granted interim reliefs as prayed and notice was
issued to Shri S.S. Saini, SSP, Ludhiana to be present
in court on 9.3.94, Shri Vinod Kumar attended the last
rites of bis father on 6.3.94 at Ludhiana under police
escort provided under orders of High Court and
returned to Chandigarh same day.
6. On 7.3.94, at night Shri Paramjit Singh, SHO Focal

point, Ludhiana alongwith his staff forcibly picked up
Pramod Kumar S/o Ratan Singh Walia, Rajesh @
Chotu (their servant) Ali (orderly of their brother-in-
law Major Pradeep Kumar) and driver Mukhtair Singh
from the residence of Vinod Kumar and Rajinder
Kumar, brother-in-law ofVinod also from residence.
7. They were wrongly detained by SHO Paramjit Singh at

PS Focal point, Ludhiana. On 8.3.94, in the morning
SHO Paramjit Singh with his staff forcibly picked up
Smt. Amar Kaur, mother ofVinod Kumar and detained
her also at the said police station illegally.
8. The above facts were brought to the notice of the

Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh through petition
dated 8.3.94 filed by Vinod Kumar which was
numbered as Crl. Misc. No. 3633/94. High Court issued
notice to the Advocate General Punjab for 9.3.94 and
directed that the detenues mentioned in the application
be produced tomorrow (9.3.94) at 10.00 A.M. All of
them and Smt. Amar Kaur were released at about 5.30
P.M. on 8.3.94.
9. On 9.3.94. Hon'ble High Court issued show cause

notice to Shri S.S. Saini & Paramjit Singh as to why
they be not proceeded under Contempt of Court Act. A
bailable warrant was issued against Shri S.S. Saini for
his appearance on 15 .3 .1994.
10. Investigation further disclosed that on 10.3.94, another

case FIR No. 44/94 dated 10.3.94 was registered at PS
Kotwali against Vinod Kumar, Ashish Kumar etc. on a
letter dated 8.3.94 ofMr. Krishan Kumar Sharma, Chief
Manager, Allahabad Bank, Clock Tower Branch,
Ludhiana. This letter was given to Inspector Paramjit
Singh on 8.3.94, who had visited the bank & contacted
Shri Sharma requesting to give the letter incorporating
the details of the accounts in which Shri Vinod Kumar
was the guarantor & in which M/s Saini Motors were
the trustees.
11. However, just after the registration of this case, Shri

S.S. Saini, the then SSP, Ludhiana, who on 9.3.94 had
not attended the High Comi as stated earlier, attended
High Comi on 11.3.94 and moved a petition submitting
therein that Vinod Kumar & Ashish Kumar were
habitual criminals & have defrauded amount which
runs into lakhs of rupees. For recovering the above
amount from then, proper interrogation of the two was
required and for that prayer was made to grant
permission to arrest them in the case FIR No. 44/94
registered against them on 10.3.94 The matter was
fixed for 12.3.94 and then on 12.3.94 adjourned to
15.3.94.
12. On 15.3.94, Shri S.S. Saini, the then SSP, Ludhiana,

S.S. Sandhu, SP Ludhiana, Nachhattar Singh, DSP and
Paramjit Singh, SHO, Focal point, Ludhiana with
subordinate police personnel were present in the 1-Iigh
Court Chandigarh on behalf of the respondents as the
matter was fixed for hearing. Shri Vi nod Kumar and his
brother Ashish Kunar and Pramod Kumar were also
present on behalf of the petitioners. On that day, the
matter was heard and the order of the interim bail was
confirmed & Vinod Kumar was granted anticipatory
bail in FIR No. 22/94, PS Focal Point and FIR 44/94 PS
Kotwali. Ashish Kumar Was also granted anticipatory
bail in FIR No. 44/94 PS Kotwali. They were granted
anticipatory bail with the direction that as and when
required by police they will join invesgitation in the
presence of their counsel. This order was pronounced
at about 5 P.M. There, SHO Paramjit Singh in the
presence ofDSP Nachhattar Singh and S.S, Sandhu SP,
gave a notice to Vinod Kumar to join investigation on
17.3.1994 in case FIR No. 22/94, PS focal point. At that
time Vinod Kumar had plans to go to Ludhiana for
getting the ashes of his father immersed at Hardwar.
Therefore, he requested not to call him on that date.
Then he asked his brothers Ashish Kumar and Pramod
Kumar to wait for him at Chandigarh.
Vinod Kumar alongwith his driver Mukhtiar Singh left

High Court premises in his mm·uti car No. PB-1 0-J-
7614 driven by driver Mukhtiar Singh, Shri S.S.
sandhu, SP Ludhiana accompanied him in his car.
Ashish Kumar informed Ashok Kumar (Brother-in-law
ofVinod) to wait for Vinod Kumar at cremation ground
Ludhiana for collecting the ashes of their late father as
per arrangement made by Vinod Kumar before leaving
the High Court.
13. On 15.3.94 at about 7 PM Ashok Kumar (brother in-
law of Vinod Kumar) had gone to Vinod Kumar's A
posse of house on his Scooter at Ludhiana, policeman
was already deployed in the vicinity ofVinod Kumar's
house and on seeing the police personnel, Ashok
Kumar tried to slip away from there but he was chased
by a police pmiy in two police vehicles and since then
his whereabouts are not known. As regards Vinod
Kumar and his driver Mukhtiar Singh nothing could be
heard after they left Chandigarh for Ludhiana in the car
alongwith SP S.S. Sandhu.
14. As nothing could be known about the whereabouts of

Vinod Kumar, Mukhtiar Singh and Ashok Kumar till
16.3.94, a Crl. Misc. Petition No. 4035 of 1994 was
filed on behalf of Ashok Kumar in the Hon'ble High
Court at Chandigarh stating therein the aforesaid facts
with a prayer that orders for the production of the
aforesaid three persons be passed and police protection
be given to the other members of the family. On this
petition, notice to the Advocate General, Punjab was
issued for 17.3.94. On 17.3.94, the AG Punjab appeared
and on the instructions of Mr. S.S. Sandhu SP submitted
that Vinod Kumar had gone in car with Shri Sandhu to
P.S. Kotwali, Ludhiana as Vinod Kumar wanted to tell
the SHO about the gist of the order passed by the High
Court and also wanted to joint investigation on 19.3.94
instead of 17.3 .94. He further stated that after
informing SHO, Vinod Kumar left the Police Station
and thereafter, Shri S.S. Sandhu, SP also left. This
petition was treated to be habeas corpus writ and
directions were issued to the State of Punjab through
AG for tracing the missing persons by 18.3.94.
Thereafter, the matter remained adjourned from time to
time till 24.3.94 and the Ludhiana Police, who was
entrusted this task by the State Government could not
locate the above three missing persons. Thereafter, the
matter was transferred to the CBI.
15. The investigation conducted has disclosed that pursuant

to a criminal conspiracy batched by S/Shri S.S. Saini,
S.S. Sandhu, Paramjit Singh, B.C. Tiwari and others
unknown, the two persons, nakely, Vinod Kumar and
Mukhtiar Singh were abducted from Chandigarh in the
evening of 15.3.94 by Shri S.S. Sandhu and other
unidentified police personnel. Ashok Kumar was
abducted from near the house of Vinod Kumar at
Ludhiana late in the evening of 15.3 .94. All the
aforesaid three persons were last seen alive on 15.3.94
in the company of the police personnel and since then
all the aforesaid three persons were untraceable and
their whereabouts are not known despite all out efforts
made in this regard.
16. Thus, there is a prima facie case establishing that s/Shri

S.S. Saini, S.S. Sandhu, Paramjit Singh and B.C. Tiwari
have committed offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 342,
343 & 364 IPC and Sec. 342, 343, 364 IPC.
17. The Hon'ble High Court ofPunjab vide its order dated
14.9.95 had directed the Govt. of Punjab to accord
sanction for prosecution against the accused police
officers. Accordingly, the Govt. of Punjab vide order
dated 18.12.95 accorded sanction for prosecution of
S/Shri SS Saini, SS Sandhu, Paramjit Singh and BC
Tiwari U/s 197 Cr. P.C for the offences punishable U/s
120B r/w 342, 365 and Sec. 343 & 365.
18. In the meantime, the State of Punjab filed SLP No. 168-
17611996 (State of Punjab Vs Vinod Kumar) in the
Supreme Court challenging the power of High Court to
direct the State govt. to accord sanction in which an
interim order was passed on 29.1.96 and in compliance
to the same, the Govt. Punjab accorded fresh sanction
for the prosecution of the said accused police ...
(illegible) offences U/s 120-B IPC r/w Sec 342, 343 and
365 IPC and Sec. 342, 343 and 365 IPC in this case.
19. Thereafter, Criminal Appeals No. 341-349 of 2000 and

440 of 2000 by State of Punjab & Ashish Kumar were
filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India concerning
the issues relating to the sections under which the
prosecution be launched. While disposing off these
appeals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred
to the contentions of Addl. Solicitor General of India
arguing for the CBI and observed, "Two rival
contentions have been raised before us in respect of the
said sanction. First is that no sanction should have been
accorded by the State Government at all in respect of
those offences. The other is that sanction accorded was
too insufficient as the State Government should have
granted sanction in respect of other offences including
Sec 364 of the IPC." The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
not expressed any opinion on such contentions as the
matters can be raised before the Trial comi at
appropriate stage.
20. The aforesaid facts and circumstances established that
SIShri SS Saini, SS Sandhu, Paramjit Singh and 342,
343 AND 364 IPC AND section 342, 343,364 IPC and
for which of them are liable to be tried according to law.
21. It is, therefore, prayed that the accused persons namely,
SIShri S.S. Saini, S.S. Sandhu, Paramjit Singh and B.C.
Tiwari may kindly be summoned to stand trial
according to law.
D.P. Singh
Supdt. OfPolice
SPE I CBI I New Delhi
. ,. __;......;. . a
!I'!
0 l~t
~ ~l1 ---~ . ,__...

;r,i.. _. .. ~~·:;-p. :i.~
__ ..... _..
,.
.. -\---~-
. I '·,;·,~•'/'""""
.
%4
~
)! . ·"' :\ f.·f~:~: -~.
StJR~~~Cp. ·.:
0
0
l _.:•
•· I'N THE
C~IM.INJIX, ORIG!!WlU
q
'TRANSE~Ri-PllTll:!Olf .(C,Rli·,:},.:NQ.~QQ _Ot ~2003

0
0
('9
Amar~-_:··.~
~
.,
,. ~ :
-I
- -...~-
. -
... ..:.
....
'\I),
~
0
Central Bureau. o~·:i;_n~~st-igation ·& Ors. ..... ...
·e ...
0 0 RD ll. R
0
A.ft.er headng the learned counsel for -1;!;\'!6 'P.ar:t:ies, tl'i~-;
0 I transfer pe;ition is allowed. C~se arising out 'of FIR:;~~:·'·R¢-2J~)Y,94".'~l.E,: :;.- ..
\I
0 i visrc-rr da::_~.Jll..d..19.9..L.t.ltled • "CB,I ·~: Saini ·a·na< other·~f~end~~.
0 6 in the court of Special Juc;lge, ,Ainbala (CBI Court) is· directed'. -~?.....~~;_._••
~~
t:ran~ferred to the Court of Di ~t· Juliger Dj!).!.l.i.-_ -•
·' ,;:;-- -r-~ , ...,"~
~
•-
·~---·
6 T· • The Special __
_,.._.,.,,-- jl'Upge, Am1:iala shall,. SOO~:on
.
·COIJllllllll"-i~ation- .O.f ·th'_i"ii ~---
t3 t:...1
' 6 o:;der, tf.:r.sfer. the record of pi;oceedin:ga iii Ga:Se ·arising out of. ·F.Ilt No.•
...
RC-2 (S) /94-SIU V/S·IC-II dated. 18~47'1'994. titled "'CBI Vs:. S.·S.• S.aini and
.
@ ~ "'"";~ ~.'C!C...·;...... I<..
Others" to the ~t Judge, Delhi, w~o· may try tq~ ;PJ.,t~i:.ioa hilllSel! ~r
e ~ ., ,.,...... . in acccrcfahce witli j:J:al(
make over the same for. hiaaring and Clisposa1 . ·.to· ·a
0 L Court. cf competent "j'urisclict"ion. subordinate to him.
I& }
I
' u·•(
•O '
t.. ... ~ •• ~ • • • • • • ..: •••• • CJI ..
lo (R. C. LA;l!0'Jiil.
ti ....
New Qelhi
c October 15, 2004
l
0 i>i."
•"le
0 •
~·
0 ......
r~·
0
Q
9
I 0
0
I0
l
~
11!) C'
u e>
I 0
0
..
·~
I ~
0
0
IF) I '
I
t·
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSF~R ~IIT~9N (CRL.) +'f o. 309 qf 2QQ3
Amc.t,r Kaur
......... Petitioner
Versus
Central :Sureau Of Investigation And Others
.............. Respondent
ORDER
After hearing the le~rned counsel for the parties, the transfer
petition is allowed. The case arising out of FIR No. RC-2 (S)/94-
SIU/V /SIC-II dated 18/04/ 1994 titled "CBI versus SS Saini and
Others" pending in the court of Special Judge, Ambala (CBI court)
is directed to be transferred to the court of Sessions judge, Delhi.
The special judge, Ambala shall, soon on communication of this
order, transfer the record of proceedings in case arising out of FIR
No. RC-2 (S)/94-SIU/V/SIC-II dated 18/04/1994 titled "CBI
versus SS Saini and Others" to the Sessions Judge, Delhi, who may
try the case himself or make over the same for hearing and disposal
in accordance with law to a court of competent jurisdiction
subordinate to him.
. ............................. CJI.
(R.C.LAHOTI)
................................ J
(G.P.MATBUR) .. .
New Delhi
lS/10/2004
--. , .
..
IN THE HIGH COURT· OF i;:>ELHI AT NEW DELfll
16.10.2006
10
Present: Mr. Ashok i<r. Slngl) with Mr. Naresh Kr. Garg '.I i
fo.r the pe_tltloner.
Mr. M.N. Dudeja for the.State. ,!·· ...
,.....
/
Crl.M.C. No. 6181/2006 'I

I
I
The petltipner's grievr;mce I~ that. the ·io~ld.ent d~~es back to the year •
1994 and the proceedings· are.CleJay~d- unnecessarily; No.doubt, -the proceedings:
. \ . -.- . .
were earlier pe_ndlng In the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, Ai:nbala and the same I I
0 stood transferred to the Cour.t of the Specla.1 Judge, CBI at' Delhi by the Supreme
.•
I :
Court vlde. lts order dated 15.10.200'4 However, It ls pointed out that even ·
after the transfer of°the said. case, the ·matter has been listed befpre . the
Spedal Judge, CBI~ Oelhl as many as 16 ~Imes but tile ·arguments· on.charge have ···-··-...:. .......
. '
not been heard so far•·• .
It goes without saying th~t e'xpeditious trial in a criminal case Is the
right of the petitioner. Next date fixedJn-thl~. case is 28/29.11.2006. It Is
made clear that the learned Judge snail hear t"i1e·arguments on ch'arge pn th~
aforesaid dates and pass _appropr~~~e-oraers thereon without gJ.~ln~·any
adjournment to a.nv of the parties. 1 ...... -~
With these"observatlons, ~his petitlon·is'disposed of. -.
A.K. SIKRI, J.
0 October 16, 2006
. '
.... '
nsk I'
'
I
. ' ~
·•.
. . . ,,.. • • •• l
~ .·
-~-~----1.-~---
0 .J
0 1
0 .. ·: .
•.I ,
~
• -- ~ \.• ·1:·
0
...
o·
0
0
0
0
0 ,:i!Xo.
~!
0 ~ :.
I
v/s
I
'.~
0 ..
0 . ... ·· s r.ate oi'· Punjab •.
0
0
·O
.. ::-· ..... •.
0 for seeking direction:
:.,.__ '.· ~
0 ' I
I
[.·~ ....·
0 .~;J. ~ 1.1 ti\-_ Lf.iiSPEC'.I:FULLY Sl:lOWEfli~
' -. !
i· '\
'-.t., .:, -, .,.;.----.. .,;-- . .~
0
<-
·------~-.!-\ •;!·.
"/..
0 \ fF ..
0
0
.o
:··r . ..
~ ... .. "".:
'\
'." :.~,
0
0 . :-·i14.•.
~
0
.0 . ! .. -.
0 .
'
·O i
0 ' I
0 \
.0
·O
·..· ...
0
.....
\ I ·. •.
0 I :.~·
··.......·1
=-n_
??7~~
;-~
- - - - ----- -- ---:
-
/
a :. ,
~o -t;~''·l
~~ --~ i d
-- .i- ......
... ,
~--0 J.t-J THE COURT OF SH. YINOtF GOEL: SPECIAL JUDGE (CBI) : DELHI.
0 CC No.5512004
~
o· RC No.2(5)/1994
G
o·
0 CBI VERSUS
1 SUMEDH SINGH SAINI
0 • The then SSP. Ludhiana
0 Now DIG (Adtnn.).
0/o DGP, Punjab, Chandigarh.
0
. 2
0 SUKHMOHINDER SINGH
SANDHU
0 Then SP. Ludhiana.
0 ~, 3 PARAMJ'IT SINGH,
,e \'.
\ Insp., the then SHO,
c PS Focal Point, Ludhiana.
0 4 BALBIR CHAND TIWARI,

Q Insp., the then SHO,
{5: PS Kotwali, Ludhiana.
~
.... ~
ORDER ON THE POINT OF CHARGE
p
c ...
0
1
~ l\~J A FIR No. RC 2(5)194- SIU. V/SIC. II was registered by
0
t~e Central Bureau of Investigation on 18.4.1994 u/s. 342, 36·~ ')
0
0 and 120-B IPC against Sumedh Singh Saini, th~ then Senior
Superintendent of Police, Ludhi~na (now working as DIG
Administration), Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu, the then SP
0 ·'
Ludhiana, Inspector Paramjit Singh. i'he then SHO, PS Focal
0
Point, Ludhiana and Inspector Balbir Chand Tiwari, the then SHO
0
c
0
0 ......... _________··--... ..... .... - .. -- ......-- .............,._ .
0
i
4)
0 2
o~
b PS Kotwali., Ludhiana on the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of
0
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 24.3.1994 passed in
0 I
o· Criminal Miscellaneous No.4035 of 199:4, No.1924 of 1994 and

i
!
0
G \ others in Misc. No.3052-M of 1994. . It is alleged that one
() Ashish Kumar was illegally kept in wrongful detention from
0 24.2,1994 to 2,3.1994 and that he was again kept in police

c ::
custody despite orders •Of CJM, Ludhiana remanding him to

\
o· I•
!
0 judicial custody. Sh. Pramod Kumar, Rajesh @ Chotu. Ali and
c Mukhtiar Singh were also illegally taken into police custody by

0
Ludhiana police in the night of 7.3.1994. Smt. Amar Kaur was
0
0' taken in police custody on 8.3.1994. It was further alleged that
@
Vinod Kumar (brother of Ashish Kumar), Mukhtiar Singh and
c
Ashok Kumar (brother in low of Vinod Kumar) were kidnapped by
0
·~ police officials of District Ludhiana in retaliation to the order
0
passed by the Hon'ble High Court on i.5.3.1994 granting
~
~ antidpatory bciil to Vinod Kumar ancf..others.
0
0 (·
2 As per investigation, during the period February, 1994 to
0
0 June, 1994 accused No,l Sumedh Singh Saini was posted as
~
K
0 Senior' Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana, Sukhmohinder Singh
0 I
Sandhu, accused No.2 was posted·as Superintendent of Police,

0
6 Ludhiana, Paramjit Sinqh, accused No3 as Inspector of Police.
0
Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana and accused No.4 Balbir
D
0 Chand Tiwari as Inspector of Police and SHO at Police Station
0
0
0 ·- ····~- . ---· .. ~-··-·· ···-. - ··-··-- .............. -
i 0
G
\t;,J"'l
Kotwali 1 Ludhiana. It is alleged that accused No.1 was having
strained relations with his close relatives Narender Saini, Smt.
Meenakshi Saini, owners of M/s. Saini Motors, Ludhiai:ia dealing in
sale of Maruti vehicles and adopted vindictive attitude towards
them and as a result of animosity, several criminal cases were
registered agdinst the partners of Mis. Saini Motors Ludhiana
during the tenure of accused No.1. A FIR No.22 dated 22.2.1994
u/s.406, 420, 465 and 120~B IPC was registered at PS Focal
Point. Ludhiana on the complaint of one Sh. Jarnail Singh, alleging
that M/s. Saini Motors, dealers in Maruti cars were selling cars
at premium and the fi~ms owned by Rattan Singh Walia and his
wife Smt. Amar Kaur. who are parents of Vinod Kumar and Ashish
Kumar had deposited several lacs of rupees with M/s. Saini
Motors and Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar have raised loan from
Allahabad Bank and after coming to know about these financial
dealings, on 24.2.199· accused No.3 raided the residence of
Rattan Singh and took away his son Ashish Kumar in his custody
and next day on 25.2.1994 an application was filed before Duty
Magistrate Ludhiana for release of Ashish Kumar but the police
did not produce him. The brother of Ashish Kumar namely Vinod
Kumar filed a petition lln 27.2.1994 before Hon'ble Chief Justice
of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh at his residence
that the police under the instruction of accused Nol was
harassing all persons having dealings with Mis. Saini Motors qnd
-,.-~C<,,
.,.,., *""'"''"""""-~""''
4
prayed for his protection and of his family from illegal detention
that may be effected by Ludhiana Police and release of his
brother Ashish Kumar and the matter was assigned to Hon'ble Mr.
Justice AK. Nehru, who ordered for issue of notice to the
Advocate General Punj:.,6 on 4.3.1994 and it was also ordered that
m case petitioner Vinod Kumar was wanted in any case
registered at PS focal Point, Ludhiana, he shall be released on
bail subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and the
application was treated as criminal miscellaneous No.3052 (M) of
1994.
3 It is further alleged that accused No.3 submitted a
report on 1.3.1994 before the Court at Ludhiana denying arrest
of Ashish Kumar and stating that Ashish Kumar was not wanted in
the FIR No.22 of 1994 and later on the police produced Ashish
Kumar in the said FIR No.22 of 1994 before Ilaka Magistrate,
Ludhiana on 3.3.1994 showing his arrest dated 2.3.1994 and
Ashish Kumar was remanded to Police custody for one day and
produced before Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana on 4.3.1994 but he
was remanded to judicial custody but Ashish Kumar was
wrongfully detained in police custody and he was later on sent to
jail at Ludhiana only on 5.3.1994 where Ashish Kumar was
admitted at 3.30 PM and released on bail by the orders of CJM
Ludhiana on 5.3.1994. The father of Vinod Kumar and Ashish

5
Kumar namely Sh.· Rattan Singh Walla died 011 53J994 and on
that day Vined Kumar filed another criminal petition in the
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh on
5.3.1994 stating that that accused No.1 harboured great ill
against the partners of M/s. Saini Motors on account of their
family dispute and the petitioner (Vinod Kumar) was being
harassed as his· parents had given Rs.48 lacs to M/s. Saini Motors
and accused wanted him to aid him implicating Mis. Saini Motors
but on his refusal to . do so he was threatened with illegal
detention and liquidation. The Hon'ble High Court granted interim
relief and ordered to issue notice to accused No.1 to come
present on 9.3.1994 and that Vinod Kumar attended the last rites
of his father on 6.3.1994 at Ludhiana under police escort
provided under orders of Hon'ble High Court and returned to
Chandigarh on the same day.
4 It is further alleged that on 7.3.1994 accused No.3 along
with his staff forcibly oicked up Pramod Kumar s/o Rattan Singh
Walia, Rajesh @ Chotu (their servant), Ali (Orderly of their
brother-in-law Pradeep Kumar) and driver Mukhtiar Singh from
the residence of Vined Kumar and they also picked up Rajinder
Kumar, brother-in-law of Vined Kumar from his residence. These
persons were wrongfl.:'y detained by accused No.3 at PS Focal
Point, Ludhiana. On 8.3.1994 accused no.3 with his staff forcibly

6
I~
I picked up Smt. Amar Kaur, mother of Vinod Kumar a~d detained
her at the said police station illegally. These facts were brought
to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court at Chandigarh by way of
petition dated 8.3.1994 filed by Vinod Kumar which was numbered
as Criminal Miscellaneous No .. 3633 of 1994 and then Hon'ble High
Court ordered for issue a notice to the Advocate General Punjab
for 9.3.1994 and directed that the detenues mentioned in the
application be produced on 9.3.1994 and all of them and Smt.
Amar Kaur were released on 8.3.1994. The Hon'ble High Court
issued show cause notice to accused No.1 and 3 on 9.3.1994 that
why they be not proceeded under Contempt of Court Act and a
bailable warrant was is~ued against accused No.1 for 15.3.1994.
5 It is further alleged that on 10.3.1994 another case FIR
No.44 of 1994 was registered at PS Kotwali Ludhiana against .
Vinod Kumar, Ashish Kumar etc. on a letter dated 8.3.1994 of Mr.
Krishan Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager, Allahabad bank, Clock
Tower Branch, Ludhiana and this letter was given to accused No.3
on 8.3.1994, who had visited the bank and contacted Sh. Sharma
requesting him to give the letter incorporating the details of the
accounts in which Vinod Kumar was the guarantor and M/s. Saini
Motors were the trustees. On 11.3.1994 accused No.1 moved a
petition before the Hon'ble High Court submitting therein that
Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar were habitual criminals and have
,.., ____ _
7
defrauded amount which runs into lacs of rupees and for
recovering the above amount from them, proper interrogation was
required and that prayer was made to grant permission to arrest
them in case FIR No.44 of 1994 registered against them on
10.3.1994. On 15.3.1994 accused No.1,2, Nachhattar Singh, DSP
and accused No.3 with .subordinate police personnel were present
in the High Court Chandigarh on behalf of respondents and Sh.
Vinod Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Pramod Kumar were also present
on behalf of petitioners. The matter was heard and the order of
the interim bail was confirmed and Vinod Kumar was granted
anticipatory bail in FIR No.22 of 1994, PS Focal Point and FIR
No.44 of 1994 PS Kotwali and Ashish Kumar was also granted
anticipatory bail in FIR No.44 of 1994 PS Kotwali. They were
granted anticipatory bail with the direction that as and when
required by the police they will join investigation in the presence
of their counsel. This order was pronounced at about 5 PM.
There accused No.3 in the presence of DSP Nachhattar Singh
and accused No.2, gave a notice to Vinod Kumar to join
investigation on '17.3.1994 in case FIR No. 22 of 1994, PS Focal
Point and at that time Vinod Kumar had plans to go to Ludhiana
for getting the ashes of his father immersed at Haridwar.
Therefore, he requested not to call him on that date and then he
asked his brothers Ashish Kumar and Pramod Kumar to wait for
him at Chandigarh. Vino~ Kumar along with his driver Mukhtiar

~,-. __ ._· .. - ··---· .. -
' - ----
8
Singh left High Court premises in his maruti car No. PB-10-J-
-
7614 driven by Mukhtiar Singh and accused No.2 accompanied him
in his car. Ashish Kumar informed Ashok Kumar (Brother in law
of Vinod Kumar) to wait for Vinod Kumar at cremation ground
Ludhiana for collecting the ashes of their late father as per
arrangement made by Vi nod Kumar before leaving the High Court.
On 15.3.1994 at about 7 PM Ashok Kumar had gone to the
residence of Vinod Kumar at Ludhiana. A posse of policeman was
already deployed in the vicinity of the house of Vinod Kumar and
on seeing the police personnel, Ashok Kumar tried to slip away
from there but he was chased by a police party in two police
vehicles and since then his whereabouts are not known. As
regards Vinod Kumar and his driver Mukhtiar Singh nothing could
be heard after they left Chandigarh for Ludhiana in the car along
with accused No.2. As nothing could be known about the
whereabouts of Vinod Kumar, Mukhtiar Singh and Ashok Kumar
till 16.3.1994, a criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.4035 of 1994
was filed by Ashish Kumar in the Hon'ble High Court at
Chandigarh stating therein that protection be given to the other
members of the family and with a prayer that orders for the
production of these three persons be passed and on this petition,
notice to the Advocate General Punjab was issued for 17.3.1994
and on 17.3.1994 the AG Punjab appeared and on the instructions
of accused no.2 submitted that Vined Kumar had gone in car with
9
accused No.2, as Vinod Kumar wanted to tell the SHO about the
gist of order passed by the High Court and also wanted to join
investigation on 19.3.1994 instead of 17.3.1994 and after
informing SHO, Vinod Kumar left the police station and
thereafter accused No.2 also left. This petition was treated to
be habeas corpus writ and directions were issued to the State of
Punjab through AG for tracing the missing persons by 18.3.1994
and the Ludhiana Police, who was entrusted this task by the State
Government could not locate the before said three missing
persons and thereafter the matter was transferred to the CBI.
6 It is further alleged that pursuant to a criminal
conspiracy hatched by accused No.1, 2, 3, 4 and others unknown
persons, two persons namely Vinod Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh
were abducted from Chandigarh in the evening of 15.3.1994 by
accused No.2 and other unidentified police personnel. Ashok
Kumar was abducted from near the house of Vinod Kumar at
Ludhiana late in the evening of 15.3.1994 and all the three
persons were last seen alive on 15.3.1994 in the company of the
police personnel and since then all the aforesaid three persons
are untraceable and their whereabouts are not known despite all
out efforts made in this regard. There is a prlma focie case
establishing that ac~used Mo.1,2,3 and 4 have committed
offences punishable u/s. 120-B r/w Section 342, 343 and 364 IPC
'~
JO
@
<Jl"\d section 342, 343 and 364 IPC. The Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana High Court vide its order dated 14.9.1995
had directed the Government of Punjab to accord sanction for
prosecution against the accused persons and the Government of
Punjab vide order dated 18.12.1995 accorded sanction for
prosecution of accused No.l, 2, 3, and 4 u/s. 197 CrPC for the
offences punishable u/s.120 B r/w Section 342 and 365 and
Section 342 and 365 IPC. In the meantime, the State of Punjab
filed SLP No.168-176/1996 (State of Punjab versus Vinod Kumar)
in the Supreme Court challenging the powers of High Court to
direct the State Government to accord sanction in which an
interim order was pas.:.:ed on 29.1.1996 and in compliance to the
same, the Government of Punjab accorded fresh sanction for the
prosecution of the said accused police officers for the offences
u/sJ2Q.,.B IPC r/w Section 342, 343 and 365 IPC and Section
342, 343 and 365 IPC. Thereafter criminal appeals No.431-439
of 2000 and 440 of 2000 by State of Punjab and Ashish Kumar
were filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India concerning the
issues relating to the sections under which the prosecution be
launched. While disposing off these appeals, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India referred to the contentions of Additional
Solicitor General of India arguing for the CBI and observed, "Two
rival contentions have been raised before us in respect of the
said sanction. First is that no sanction should have been accorded

11
by the State Government at all in respect of those offences. The
other is that sanction accorded was too insufficient as the State
Government should have granted sanction in respect of other
offences including Section 364 of IPC". The Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has not expressed any opinion in such contentions

.
as the matter can be raised before the Trial Court at appropriate
stage.
7 On the above said facts, it was alleged by the prosecution
that the facts disclosed commission of offence punishable u/s.
120-B r/w section 342, 343 and 364 IPC and Section 342, 343
and 364 IPC against accused No.1 to 4. Ld. Special Public
Prosecution Sh. Y.K. Saxena, in his submissions referred the
above said charge sheet, statement of witnesses recorded u/s.
161 CrPC and also the documents collected during investigation
and argued that a prima facie case is made out against the
accused persons and charges be framed against all of them u/s.
120-B r/w section 342, 343 and 364 IPC and Section 342, 343
and 364 IPC. He also submitted that there was no necessity of
obtaining sanction u/s .. 197 CrPC as the act done by the accused
No.1 to 4 that is the public servants was not in discharge of their
official duties and section 197 CrPC was not applicable to the
facts of the present case.

12
8 The Learned Public Prosecutor has also relied upon a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. "State of M.P. Vs. S.B.
Johari & Others" AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2000, Cri.L. J. 944
(SC) and argued that at the stage of framing charge the trial
Court need not to· appreciate the evidence and arrive at the
conclusion that material produced are ·sufficient or not for
convicting the accused and if the court is satisfied that a prima
fade case is made out for proceedings further, then a charge has
to be framed. He also .argued that the Sanjay Singh's case relied
upon by the counsel for accused No.1 is not applicable to the
facts of the present case. He argued that it is a clear · case of
motive but the absence of motive is not a ground to reject the
prosecution case and if motive is proved it would supply the
chains of links and he. relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court State of Gujrat versus Anirudhsing and
another, 1997 Cri.L.J. 3397 (SC}. He has also relied upon
another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Udaipal Singh
versus The State of UP, AIR 1972 SC 54, wherein it was held
that in cases where ohly circumstantial evidence is available at
the outset, one considers the motive and the opportunity to
commit the crime and if the evidence shows that the accused was
having a strong motive and had the opportunity of committing the
crime and the established circumstances on the record
considered along with' the explanation, if any, of the accused,

_,
13
excluding reasonable possibility of any one else being the real
culprit, then the chain of evidence can be considered to be so
complete as to show tpat within all human probability the crime
must have been committed by the accused. He has also relied
upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in State of UP
versus Babu Ram, 2000 Cri.L.J. 2457, wherein it was held that
motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on
testimony of eye witness or circumstantial evidence.
9 Conversely, it is argued by the learned counsel for accused
No.1 that no prima facie case is made out against accused
persons. He argued that the case of the prosecution is based on
the allegations of motive and if alleged motive is subtracted,
prosecution case fails. He submitted that sister of accused No.1
Smt. Malka was married with Sh. Harbhagwan Singh, who is the
brother of Narender Saini and Rajeev Saini and brother-in-law of
Ms. Meenakshi Saini, the partners of Mis. Saini Motors in the
year 1975 and their marriage was dissolved by a decree of
divorce in the year 1978 and both of them have re-married and
Harbhagwan is settled in Hoshiarpur and the alleged. incident is of
February I March 1994 and there cannot be any such motive
after a yawning gap of 16 years. He submitted that no partner of
M/s. Saini Motors or Harbhagwan was ever abducted ·or harmed
and that Vinod Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Mukhtiar Singh and Ashok
14
Kumar were not relateq to Mis. Saini Motors or to accused No.1
and had there been nny animosity I vendetta or revenge of
accused No.1, it would have been against Harbhagwan Singh and it
was a morbid imagination of the prosecution to seek trial on the
pretext of this motive which was incredible. He further argued
that accused No.1 remained posted as SSP Ludhiana from
1.8.1988 to 2.2.1990 and again from 30.9.1993 to 17.6.1994 and
four FIRs No. 151, 29, 34 and 127 were registered during the
first posting of accused No.1 as SSP Ludhiana. The investigation
was completed and the challan was filed against the partners of
M/s. Saini Motors long prior to the present occ;:urrence. Two
cases vide FIR No.22 and 44 were registered in February, 1994
and March, 1994 during the second tenure of accused No.1 at
Ludhiana as SSP. He further argued that complainants of these
cases have not been examined by the Investigating Officer and
that the charge sheet have already been filed in all cases except
in FIR No.44 of 1994, in which Vined Kumar is a Proclaimed
Offender and only K.K. Sharma, complainant of FIR No.44 of
1994 has been examined by the prosecution. He argued that
when the char~e sheet has been filed in all five cases it shows
.
that a prima facie cognizable offence was committed by the
accused persons named in those FIRs and that u/s. 154 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure the concerned police officer cannot
refuse to register a case on the ground that information is not

15
reliable or credible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Others, 1992 Supp. (1)
SCC 335 and now the prosecution cannot allege that those FIRs
were falsely registered or t~t FIR No.22 and 44 were
registered to implicat~ Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar and those
cases have in law to be treated as prima facie true and he
further submitted that the officer of the rank of SSP comes
into the picture only if SHO refuses to register the FIR which
did not happen in either of the six cases.
10 The learned counsel further argued that mere. suspicion of
motive cannot serve as a sufficient ground for framing of charge,
as per law laid down in case of State of UP through CBI vs. Dr.
Sanjay Singh, 1994 Supp. (2), sec 707.
11 The learned counsel further argued that on the point of
conspiracy dated 15.3.1994 the prosecution has not shown even a
single line in the entire evidence that the accused No.1 has ever
been in touch with either of accused No.2 or with accused No.3
or accused No.4 and on 15.3.1994 the accused No.1 has left the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the morning as
admitted by PW-1 Ashish Kumar and how it could be anticipated
that High Court would decide the matter on 15.3.1994 or would
hear the matter in the second session on 15.3.1994 or pronounce

!'f." •:P ·~ • • ••• 0•
16
the order at 5 PM or 5.30 PM, or how could he have known or
anticipated as to how High Court would decide the case or
whether would grant the anticipatory bail to Vinod Kumar or
Ashish Kumar or Vinod Kumar and accused No.2 would meet up
and travel together from Chandigarh to Ludhiana. He argued that
how these developments humanly would be anticipated, planned
or foreseen. He further argued that not a single allegation has
.
been leveled against accused No.2 by the complainant Walia
Family before 15.3.1994 and likewise name of accused No.4 did
not figure any where in the prosecution case before 15.3.1994
except registration of c.ase of FIR No.44 dated 10.3.1994. He
further argued that accused No.3 had given only a notice u/s. 160
CrPC to Vinod Kumar or; 15.3.1994 in the premises of Hon'ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana which cannot be construed as
evidence of criminal intent or design for abduction and the name
of accused No.1 also does not figure in the prosecution case
before 15.3.1994 in the CBI report submitted before Hon'ble ·
High Court. He argued that accused No.1 did not file any
. affidavit dated 11.3.1994 in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana and it was only duly verified reply to the petition filed by
Vinod Kumar. He argued that as accused No.1 had received a
notice under Contempt of Court from the Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana, 'he had to file reply pleading inter alia
..
17
custodial interrogation of Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar in FIR
No.22 and 44.
12 He further argued that from Chandigarh the accused No.2
went to police station Kotwali Ludhiana along with Vinod Kumar in
his car and there accused No.4 recorded case diary in FIR No.44
that Vinod Kumar has been granted anticipatory bail and he was
to go to Haridwar for immersion of ashes of his father and he
should not interrogate him till 19.3.1994 and thereafter he left
the police station and afterwards accused No.2 left the police
station kotwali. He also argued that regarding alleged abduction·
of Ashok Kumar no police officials has been identified by either
of the witnesses.
13 He further argued that there could be no conspiracy by
accused No.1 on the point of illegal confinement of Smt. Amar
Kaur, Pramod Kumar, Chottu @ Rajesh @ Pappu and AH as they
were allegedly picked up by accused No.3 on 7.3.1994 and set
free on 8.3.1994 and the accused No.1 was on leave from 7.3.1994
to 9.3.1994 and there is no evidence that accused No.1 was
managing the affairs behind the scene.
14 The learned counsel for accused No.1 also argued that
without prejudice to his beforesaid submissions, the prosecution

18
case does not disclose any offence and the challan filed u/s.364
IPC was totally incompetent and no cognizance would be taken of
the same for want of sanction of the offence u/s. 364 IPC and
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has left the matter of necessity,
adequacy and validity of sanction to be raised before the trial
court at the appropriate stage and consequently the question as
to whether any .Sanction was required for prosecution of
accused u/s.364 IPC or not and whether this court can take
.
cognizance of offence punishable u/s.364 !PC against accused
without sanction or not have to be decided after appearance of
the accused and the State Government has not granted sanction
consciously u/s.364 IPC. He submitted that if no sanction was
needed why the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered the State
Government to pass a fresh order on 29.1.1996. He further
argued that the registration of FIR by the concerned Inspectors
posted in the police stations was in discharge of their official
duties. He further submitted that even if the FIRs were
registered at the behest of accused No.1, that function was also
in discharge of his official 9uty. Serving of notice by accused
No.3 on Vined Kumar u/s.160 CrPC was also his function in
discharge of his official duty and if the accused No.3 has
investigated the matter it was the function in discharge of his
official duty. If accused No.2 and Vinod Kumar came in police
station on 15.3.1994 to make a request for joining investigation on

19
19.3.1994 and he made entry in the case diary it was the function
in the. discharge of his official duty and as such the prior sanction
for prosecution of accused persons by the State Government
was mandatory. He ·argued that the sanction has not been
granted u/s.364 IPC by the State Government and as such no
charge can be framed u/s.364 IPC. On these grounds it is prayed
on behalf of accused No.1 that no prima fade case is made out
and accused should be discharged.
15 On behalf of accused No.2 it is submitted by the learned
Counsel Sh. Alok Sen Gupta, Advocate that as per the case of the
prosecution the occused No.2 comes in picture only on 15.3.1994
and he has nothing to do either with M/s. Saini Motors or with
Walia Family and he had no animosity with either of them and he
was supposed to attend the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana on 15.3.1994. He stated that as per the allegations in
the charge sheet, Vinod Kumar was abducted in retaliation of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court at 5 PM on 15.3.1994 ond
as such as per the prosecution the conspiracy started on
15.3.1994. He stated that at that time accused No.1 and 4 were
not there in the High Court premises and there cannot be any
meeting of mind when accused No.1 and 4 were not there and it
was sudden decision of Vinod Kumar to go to Ludhiana after he
was granted bail. He submitted that during investigation the CBI

20
has written two letters to Doordarshan through ·sh. M.L. ·Sharma,
Deputy Inspector Gem~ral of Police in July, 1994 and April, 1995
mentioning disappearance of Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar and
Mukhtiar Singh from Ludhiana and CBI was not sure if they
disappeared from Ludhiana or from Chandigarh.
16 On behalf of atcused No.3 Sh. S.K. Saxena, Advocate,
argued that after lodging of FIR No.22 in PS Focal Point Ludhiana
by accused No.3 SHO/ Inspector the matter was investigated
and charge sheet had already been filed before CJM Ludhiana
and charge had already been framed by CJM Ludhiana as prima
facie case was made olit and now that finding cannot be disturbed
by this court as this Court is not superior Court in hierarchy and
that CBI also cannot say that charge sheet or FIR was false. He
also argued that factum of conspiracy must be proved by
evidence other than the disputed evidence that is by way of
independent evidence in order to avail the applicability of Section
10 of Evidence Act and prosecution has failed to prove any such
evidence or circumstance in the present case which is
independent of disputed evidence and therefore, charge of
conspiracy should not be framed against accused No.3 and calling
of any person either as a witness or as an accused for the
purpose of investigation in FIR No.22 does not constitute offence
u/s.342 or 343 or 365 IPC. He argued that accused Ashish

21
Kumar was taken intb custody only on 2.3.1994 and not on
24.2.1994 and statement of witnesses Ashish Kumar, Pramod
Kumar, Rajender Kumar, Smt. Amar Kaur regarding alleged
kidnapping are contradictory and untrustworthy and no role has
been attributed to accused No.3 after 8.3.1994 and there is no
evidence that the accused No.3 was seen in the company of Vinod
Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh on 15.3.1994 or
thereafter.
17 He also argued that order of sanction is bad in law as it is
not a speaking order and does not show application of mind and
the same does not contain the detailed facts constituting the
alleged offence in question. He also argued in the alternative
that even no sanction ~as been granted u/s. 364 IPC and as such
no charge can be framed under Section 364 IPC.
18 The learned counsel for accused No.4 Sh. Ashok Aggarwal,
Advocate argued that it was all a drama which Vinod Kumar and
Ashish Kumar have created by filing petition before Hon'ble High
Court to avoid their misdeeds of selling Maruti Car on premium by
taking loan from bank and booking the same with M/s. Saini
Motors and that a civil suit for recovery was already filed by
M/s. Allahabad Bank u/o 34 CPC against ten defendants including
Vinod Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Smt. Amar Kaur etc. and the FIR
22
No.44 was lodged· by accused No.4 on 10.3.1994 ~m the complaint
of PW-21 Sh. K.K. Sharma, Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank against
Ashish Kumar, Vinod Kumar etc. after taking legal advise of SP
City and on 15.3.1994 after grant of anticipatory bail Vinod Kumar
fled away to avoid bank l_iability as Hon'ble High Court had
directed him to pay the outstanding amount to the bank within 30
days but the CBI has failed to unearth this drama created by
Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar. He also argued that the charge
sheet does not mention that the case diary dated 15.3.1994 was
incorrect and the investigation officer shoJtd have examined the
officials of PS Kotwali Ludhiana to verify if Vinod Kumar and
accused No.2 reached there or not on 15.3.1994 and no evidence
has been filed by the CBI to connect accused No.4 with the crime
in question and even if as per the case of the prosecution Vinod
Kumar and accused No.2 did not reach PS Kotwali then accused
No.4 is out of the charge sheet as he had no role in abduction and

I
if the case diary of FIR No.44 dated 15.3.1994 is correct then
the Vinod Kumar left PS Kotwali after 8 PM of his own and
accused No.4 cannot be blamed.
19 Now on the point of charge to appreciate the rival
contentions of the parties it is necessary to refer Section 227
and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which reads as
under:-
23
"227 Discharge. - If, upon consideration .of the
record of the case and the documents submitted
therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the
accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the
Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused, he shall
discharge the accused and record his reasons for so
doing.
228. Framing of charge. - ( 1 ) If, after such
consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is
of opinion that there is ground for presuming that
the accused has committed an offence which -
( a ) is not exclusively triable by the Court of
Session, he may, frame a charge against the accused
.and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the
Chief Judicial Magistrate (or any other Judicial
Magistrate of the first class and direct the accused
to appear before the Chief Judicial magistrate, or,
as the case may be, the Judicial Magistrate of the
first class, on which date as he deems fit, and
thereupon such Magistrate) shall try the offence in
accordance with the procedure for the trial of
warrant cases instituted on a police report;

24
( b ) is exclusively triable by the Court, he shall
frame in writing a charge against the accused.
(2 ) Where the judge frames any charge under
clause (b). of sub-section (1), the charge shall be
read and explained to the accused and the accused
shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the ·
offence charged or claims to be tried."
20 The scope of these sections has been considered by the
Hon"ble Supreme Court and also by our own Hon'ble High Court in
various reported cases and some of the relevant cases are being
cited here. It has been recently held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
in State of Orissa Versus Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1
Supreme Court Cases 568 that, at the stage of framing of
charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible.
21 It has been recently held by Honourable Supreme Court of
India in State of Tamil Nadu Vs. J. Jailalitha, Volume V,
2000 SLT 113 that t'his is not the stage of weighing the pros
and cons of all implication of materials nor for sifting material
presented by the prosecution and exercise is to be confined to
consider the police report and documents to decide the
allegations against the accused person.

25
22 It has olso been held by the Supreme Court of India in
Superintendent and Rememberance of Legal Affairs West
Bengal Vs. Anil Kumar, 1979 Supreme Court Cases(Crl.)
1038:-
''The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be
applied finally before finding the accused guilty or
otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of
Section 227 or 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded
upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to
form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the
factual ingredie..rits constituting the offence alleged may
justify the framing of charge."
23 In State of Maharasthra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, AIR
1996, SC, 1744, it is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that.
"If on the basis of the material on record, a court could
come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is
probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exits.
To put it differently, if the court were to think that the
accused might have committed the offence, it can frame
the charge, thugh for conviction, the conclusion is
required to be that the accused has committed the
offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of
- - - ------------------·----
26
charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot
be gone into, the material brought on record by the
prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage."
24 In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Kishan Lal, AIR
1987, SC 773 (ParalO}, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court
that,
all that is required at the stage of charge is to see
whatever a prima facie case regarding the commission of
certain offences is made out. The question whether the
charges will eventually, stand proved or not can be
determind only after evidence is recorded in the case.
25 Further in State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 19n,
SC 2018, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:-
"The standard of test and judgment which is to be finally
applied before recording a finding regarding the guilt or
otherwise of the accused is not exactly to be applied at
the stage of deciding the matter u/s.227 or 228 of Cr.PC.
At that stage, the court is not to see whether there is
sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or
whatever trial is sure to end in the conviction."

·-·-·- _., ___ .,_ -------.,-----------------~-------~~~
27
26 It has been further held by the Honourable Supreme Court
in Kanti Bhadra Shah Vs. State of Bengal, JT 2000(1) SC 13,
the Honourable Supreme Court laid down the law as under:-
"If the trial court decides to frame a charge, there is no
legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying
the reasons as to why he opts to do so. Framing of charge
itself is prima fade order that the trial Judge has formed
the opinion upon considering the police report and other
documents and after hearing both sides, that there is
ground for presuming that the accused has committed the
offence concerned. If he forms the opinion that there is
ground for presuming that the accused had committed the
offence which he is competent to try. He is only required
to frame a charge in writing against the accused."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court -further held in Kanti Bhadra
Shah Vs. State of Bengal (Supra) as under:-
" If there is no legal requirement that the Trial Court
should writ an order showing the reasons for framing a
charge, why should the already burdened trial courts be
further burdened with such an extra work. The time has
reached to adopt all possible measures to expedite the
.
Court procedures and to chalk out measures to avert all
road blocks causing avoidable delays. If a Magistrate is to

28
write detailed orders at different stages merely because
the counsel would address arguments at all stages, the snail

'
paced progress of proceedings in trial Courts would further
be slowed down."
27 It has been held by our own Hon'ble High Court in case
Mathura Das & others versus State, 2003 II AD(Cr.) DHC
437, that,
"The existence of a p;ima facie case may be found even on
the basis of strong suspicion against an accused. The
assessment, evaluation and weighing of the prosecution
evidence in a criminal case at the fLnal stage is on entirely
different footing than it is at the stage of framing a
charge. At the final stage if two views are possible one of
which suggests that the accused may be innocent, then the
view favourable for the accused has to be accepted
whereas at the stage of framing of the charge, the view
which is favourable to the prosecution, has to be accepted
for the purpose of framing charge so that in the course of
the trial, the prosecution may come out with its
explanations in regard to the draw backs and weaknesses,
if any, being pointed out by an accused."
28 It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umar Abdul
Sakoor Sorathia versus Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Central

29
Bureau, 2000, SCC (Cri) 200, that at the stage of framing of

I
charge the Court need not deeply examine the probative value of
the materials on record and if on the basis of the such material
the Court come to the conclusion that the- accused would have
committed the offence, the court is obliged to frame the charge.
Similarly, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State
of MP Versus S.B . .Johari and Others, 2000 Cri.L.J'. 944
(SC), that,· it is settled law that at the stage of framing charge,
the Court has to prima fade consider whether there is sufficient
ground for proceedin~ against the accused. The Court is not
required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion
that the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting
the accused. If the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case is
made out for proceedings further then a charge has to be
framed.
29 From the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it
comes out that at the stage of the charge, court is to see if a
prima facie case has been made out or not and whether there are
sufficient grounds for proceedings against the accused or not and
the charge has not to be framed simply because a charge sheet
has been filed or on at mere asking of the prosecution and at
this stage the court is not to weigh the pros and cons of
implications of materials or for sifting the material presented by

30
the prosecution and exercise is to confine to consider the
police report and the documents to decide the allegations against
the accused persons and if the court were to think that the
t
. .
accused might have committed the offence it can frame the
charge though for conviction, the conclusion is required to be
that the accused has committed the offence. At the stage of
framing of charge, probative value of the material brought on
record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true and the

-
court is not to make a roving and fishing enquiry into the prps and
cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was
conducting the trial. Even a very strong suspicion founded upon
the materials before the court which leads him to form a
presumptive opinion as to existence of factual ingredient.
constituting the offence should justify framing of charge and if
two uses are possible, the one which is favourable to the
prosecution has to be accepted for the purpose of framing the
charge.
30 As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeo Singh Versus
State of Bihar & Another, I I (2000) CCR 218 (SC)- Criminal
prosecution does not necessarily mean harassment and in the
event the prosecution of this nature is alleged to b? continued, it
would not be in our view travesty of justice or any undue

31
prejudice or even otherwise prejudicial, since ultimately in the
event, the charge is not proved he would be acquitted.
31 The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined under
Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code and it states that when
two or. more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an
illegal act; or (b) an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The essence of
offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement.
The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and
in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is
committed as soon as ·the agreement is made; and the offence
continues to be committed so long as the combination persists,
that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by
completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration
or however it may be. The gist of offence of co,nspiracy is an
agreement to break the law. In considering the question of
criminal conspiracy it is not always possible to give affirmative
evidence about the date of formation of conspiracy, about the
persons who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the
object which the conspirators set before themselves as the
object of conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of
conspiracy was to be carried out. All this is necessarily a matter
of inference. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement

32
to do an illegal act. Such an agreement can be proved either by
direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is
not necessary that there should be express proof of the
agreement, far from the acts and conduct of the parties, the
agreement can be infe~red.
32 On the point of criminal conspiracy it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Narayan Laxmi Narayan Joshi
Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980, SC 439 that a
conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to
adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only
proved largely from inference drawn from acts or illegal
omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a
common design. Similarly in Mohamad. Usman Mohammad.
Hassan Maniyar Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981, SC
1062, that for an offence u/s. 120-B IPC the prosecution need
not necessarily prove that the perpetrator expressly agreed to
do or cause to be d.one the illegal act, the agreement may be
prove by necessary implication. Recently it has been held by the
Hon'ble Supreme court in Ram Narayan Poply Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2003, SC 2748 that,
"the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal
conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a

~~~~,...--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
·~~~~~~~~ ...............
33
case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act
which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event
no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution
because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is
established by proving such an agreement. Where the
conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious
crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120-B read
with the proviso to sub section (2) of Section 120-A, then
in that event more proof of an agreement between the
accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to
bring about a conviction under Section 120-B and the proof
of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them
would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation,
do not require that each and every person who is a party to
the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the
fulfillment of the object of conspiracy, the essential
ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to
commit the crime and if these requirements and
ingredients are established, the act would fall within the
trappin~ of the provisions contained in Section 120-B.
Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a
conspiracy. than of a loud discussion in an elevated place
open to public view. Direct evidence in proof of conspiracy
is seldom available; offence of conspiracy can be proved by

34
-~
. -
either direct or. substantial evidence. It is not always
possible to give affirmative evidence about. date of
formation of criminal conspiracy, about the persons who
took part in formation of conspiracy, about the object,
which the objectors set before themselves as the object
of conspiracy and about the manner in which· the object of

'
conspiracy is to be carried out; all this is necessarily a
matter of inference."
33 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Firozuddin Basheeruddin versus State of Kerala, 2001 (4)
Recent Criminal Report Page 20, that the criminal conspiracy
can be proved by circumstantial evidence and even if some steps
are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the
knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those
others when they are associated with the object of the
conspiracy. It is also held that conspiracy is hatched in private
or in .secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish conspiracy by
direct evidence and usually both the existence of the conspiracy
and its object have to be inferred from the circumstances and
conduct of the accus~d. When two or more persons agree to
commit crime of conspiracy, then regardless of making or
considering any plans for its commissjon, .and despite the fact
that no step is taken by such persons to carry out their common

FICP
2
W!!UR'rDi!f'ftffflt
' 35
purposes, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins
in the agreement. A criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime
and that there is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for
the prosecution of a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons
enter into a conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to
the agreement is, in contemplation of law, the act of each of ·
them and they are jointly responsible thereof.
34 I have gone through the charge sheet, statement of

.
witnesses and the documents filed by the prosecution and have
given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the
parties.
35 Document D-1 is consisting of the proceedings before the
Hon'ble High Court of !?unjab and Haryana and Chandigarh that is
various applications, replies thereof affidavits and orders passed
by the Hon'ble High Court. The victim Vinod Kumar filed an
application on 27.2.1994 in the Hon'ble High Court that on
22.2.1994 a FIR was registered against M/s. Saini Motors and his
parents Sh. Rattan .Singh Walia and Smt. Amar Kaur have
deposited Rs. 24 lacs with Mis. Saini Motors and that on
24.2.1994 police raided residence of his father and removed
some files and took along with them his brother Ashish Kumar
without any warrant of arrest and on 25.2.1994 an application was

,
filed before Duty Magistrate Ludhiana for presence of Ashish
- - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · -···--
36
Kumar on which a notice was issued for 26.2.1994 but the police
did not produce him and thEh case was fixed for 27.2.1994. It was
r
further alleged in the application that accused No.1 has enmity
against M/s. Saini Motors as the marriage of his sister with the
brother of one of the partner of M/s. Saini Motors ended in
divorce and accused No.1 was trying to rope in every person who
has given money to M/s. Saini Motors so as to ruin them
financially and police at the instruction of accused No.1 was
harassing every such person. His brother had already been taken
into illegal custody and he also apprehends that he might be taken
into illegal custody by the Ludhiana police. The applicant Vined
Kumar was granted anticipatory bail same day by the Hon'ble High
Court and notice was issued to Advocate General Punjab on
4.3.1994 and on adjourned date, IO did not turn up and case was
adjourned to 7.3.1994. Meanwhile, on 5.3.1994 applicant Vinod
Kumar moved another application u/s.482 CrPC in the Hon'ble
High Court for providing security to him and for release of his
brother Ashish Kumar to perform the last rites of his father. It
was alleged that their father had passed away on 5.3.1994 and
accused No.1 was having great ill will against Mis. Saini Motors
and applicant was being dragged in as his parents have deposited
Rs.48 lacs with M/s. Saini Motors and accused No.1 wanted the
applicant Vined Kumar to co-operate with him in implicating M/s.
Saini Motors and the applicant Vinod Kumar refused to do so and

37
he was threatened with illegal detention and liquidation and he
had managed to run away from Ludhiana and after his bail order
dated 27.2.1994 he went to Ludhiana but the police again
attempted to get hold of him but he rushed away from Ludhiana
and staying at Chandigarh and Delhi. He alleged that he had very
fear that he would be taken into custody and either tortured or
liquidated by the police under the orders of accused No.1. It is
further alleged that on the application filed before ·Duty
Magistrate, Ludhiana regarding production of his brother Ashish
Kumar a report was filed on behalf of SHO PS Focal Point
Ludhiana at 2 PM on 1.3.1994 that Ashish Kumar was neither
wanted in FIR No.22 of 22.2.1994 nor he was detained in police

J
custody and that surprisingly Ashish Kumar was produced in the
Court of CJM Ludhiana on 3.3.1994 on the ground that he was
arrested on 2.3.1994 i11 FIR No.22 of 1994 and Ash.ish Kumar was
remanded to police custody for one day and he was produced
before Judicial Magistrate on .4.3.1994 after court hours and on
that day he was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days. He
further repeated that despite the orders of the Hon'ble High
Court he would be severally beaten up and even liquidated as he
was receiving threats. This application was accompanied by an
affidavit of Vined Kumar and on 5.3.1994, the Hon'ble High Court
of Punjab and Haryana passed the following order:-
"Present- Mr. Vined Kumar, petitioner in person.

\
38
The case has been put up at mY. residence
today under the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
Vide order dated 27.2.1994 passed in Crl.
Misc. No. 3052-M of 1994, notice to the Advocate General
Punjab, was issued for 4.3.1994, and in the meanwhile, it
was directed that in case the petitioner is wanted in any
case registered at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana, he
shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the
Arresting Officer. On 4.3.1994, the case was adjourned to
- 7.3.1994 and interim direction was allowed to continue.
In the present application, the petitioner has
stated that because of dispute between the SSP of
Ludhiana, Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini and proprietors of M/s.
Saini Motors, who are closely related, the petitioner has
been dragged unnecessarily and he apprehends that in case
he visits Ludhiana without proper police protectfon, he will
be taken into custody despite the orders of this Court and
.
will be severely beaten up or even liquidated. He has
further stated that his father has expired today i.e. ,
5.3.1994, but because of fear, he cannot go to Ludhiana to
perform the last rites of his father. He has further
stated that his brother Ashish Kumar was taken into
custody on 24.2.!994 and on 25.2.1994, an application was
moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate I Duty

39
Magistrate Ludhiana for production of Ashish Kumar. The
police did not bother to put in appearance on 26.2.1994 and
27.2.1994. On 28.2.1994 that the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Ludhiana the police to send a report on 1.3.1994
at 10.00 AM. On that date, the report was received from
the police that the natne of the detenu is not mentioned,

.
though this was wrong as the name of the detenu, i.e.
Ashlsh Kumar was already mentioned, but it was again
supplied to the police. The report was filed on behalf of
SHO, PS Focal Point. Ludhiana that Ashish Kumar was
neither wanted in FIR No.22 dated 22.2.1994 nor he was
detained in custody of the police. However, on 3.3.1994,
Ashish Kumar was produced in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ludhiana, as an accused in the same very FIR in
which the police had stated that Ashish Kumar was not
wanted. The police came out with the story that he was
arrested on 2.3.1994 and he was sent to the police custody.

•
He was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate
after court hours and was against taken back to the police
lock up in spite of the fact that he was ordered to be
confined to j1..Jdicial custody upto 18.5.1994. The
allegations leveled by the petitioner are serious in nature
and deserve to be probed into. Considering that the father
of the petitioner has died and petitioner is required to

!l'Wf!Jt'tftJP'R!ll1'f'Fffl
40
perform his last rites and that since he apprehends that he
would be liquidated in case police protection·is not given to
him, a direction is hereby issued to the Inspector General
· of Police, Chandigarh to provide adequate police protection

'
with an advance information to the police authorities at
Ludhiana that order of this court whereby anticipatory bail
has been allowed to the petitioner shall be strictly follow
and no departure shall be made. The Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ludhiana, is also directed to pass orders,
releasing Ashish Kumar on bail forthwith on his furnishing
his personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- so as to
enable him to perform the last rites of his deceased
father. Notice is also issued to Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini,
SSP of Ludhiana, to be present in Court

r
on 9.3.1994 to
answer the allegations made in this application.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana is
further directed to ensure the forth release of Ashish
Kumar.
To come up before me on 9.3.1994.
Copy of this order be given dasti.
5th March, 1994."
36 Then on 8.3.1994 another application was filed by Vinod
Kumar u/s.482 CrPC before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
41
Haryana alleging thereih that he made a STD call to his residence
from a public call office Sector 35 Chandigarh at 21.14 PM and
his wife picked up the telephone and he heard her enquiring as to
who was knocking at the door of her bed room and then he heard
the shouts that they have come from police station and if she did
not open the door they will break down the door of the bed room
and his wife opened the bed room door and put the receiver down
but did not put off the phone and he was hearing the voice of the
police officials and they were telling his wife that they want
Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar by all means and why accused No.1
had been summoned to Hon'ble High Court and they also
threatened to harass and physically eliminate Vinod Kumar if they
found him and the police has beaten up all the male members of
the family and abused the ladies and they took away Pramod
I
Kumar (Brother of Vinod Kumar), Ali (Orderly), Mukhtiar Singh
(Driver) and his applicant's brother's servant. It was further
alleged that police thereafter went to the house of his brother-
in-law namely Rajender who stood surety for Ashish Kumar and
took him away. It was alleged that applicant has brought these
facts to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court for his protection
and that all the family members and all the persons, have been
taken into illegal custody by the police under the direction of
accused No.1 at Police Stati'on Focal Point Ludhiana. Notice of
this application was is~ued to AG Punjab for 9.3.1994. On that

42
day Pramod Kumar filed his affidavit deposing therein that on
7.3.1994 at about 11 PM. the police party headed by accused no.3
and other police officials forcibly took him, his servant Chotu @
Raju, Ali and Mukhtiar Singh (Driver) and on· the way to Police
Station they also took away Rajender Kumar and kept them in PS
focal Point Ludhiana and they were threatened that they should
withdraw the cases from the High Court and they were released
on 8.3.1994 at 5.30 PM. Similarly, Smt. Amar Kaur, mother of
applicant Vinod Kumar filed affidavit to this effect. On 9.3.1994
the Hon'ble High Court noted all the facts in its order and passed
the following order:-
" ....................................................
'
• • o o o 0 0 0 0 0 • • • • • • •"'"' 0"' • o 0 I 0 .. "''" • o • •"' •"' o"' o•o • • •. o
The allegations made in this application as well as
affidavits are also very serious in nature and they go -
on to show that Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini, SSP
Ludhiana, and the officers working under him at
Ludhiana, have no respect for the Authority of Law.
They appear to have committed the Contempt of this
Court. Therefore, a show cause notice is issued to
Mr. Sumeah Singh Saini, SSP as well as Paramjit

'
Singh, SHO, Ludhiana. as to why they be not
proceeded against under the Contempt of courts

43
Act. Since, Mr. Saini has not appeared despite the
order of this Court, bailable warrants in the sum of
Rs.10,000/- are issued for 15.3.1994, in order to
secure his presence. Pciramjit Singh, SHO is also
directed to be present in Court on 15.3.1994.
Registry is directed to give dasti bailable warrants
to the Advocate General, Punjab for further handing
over to Nachhattar Singh, DSP (City) Ludhiana, who
is present in Court, and he (Nachhattar Singh) s'hall
execute the bailable warrants upon Mr. S.S. Saini,

.
SSP. It is made clear that in case Nachhattar Singh
fails to execute the said bailable warrants,
appropriate action shall be taken against him .
petitioner and his brother, Ashish Kumar shall not be
arrested in any case, which may have been
registered. against them, without permission of this
Court. Security officials provided to the petitioner
vide order dated 5.3.1994, shall be allowed to
continue till further orders. Mr. Nachhattar Singh,
DSP is also directed to be present in Court on the

'
next date of hearing i.e. 15.3.1994.
Order Dasti.
9.3.1994."
EH2ftj!H't?!M?1
• 44 @
37 On 11.3.1994 accused No.1 appeared in person and filed an
application before Hon'ble Judge of the High Court dealing with
the matter in which he inter alia pleaded that the relief granted
to Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar might be vacated and they
should be allowed to be arrested in FIR No.44 of 10.3.1994 PS
Kotwali; Ludhiana for the purpose of investigation. Notice was
issued for 12.3.1994 and then to 15.3.1994. In para No.6 of its
reply filed by Vined Kumar on 15.3.1994, he pleaded that even on
that day he was apprehending that he might be taken into

'
custody by the police and would be tortured or some method
would be found to get him liquidated for the simple reason that
he dared to move the Hon'ble High Court against accused No.1
and the Hon'ble High Court ordered for his bailable warrants. On
15.3.1994 the Hon'ble •High Court in its order after giving the
entire facts of the matter passed the following order:-
.• "
I
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length, I· am of the view that the petitioner is
entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. In Cri.
Misc. No.3059-M of 1994, the proprietors of M/s.
Saini Motors. the principal accused, were. granted
anticipatory bail and, therefore, no exception can be
made in the case of petitioner. He deserves the

I
45
I J
·~
same treatment. Therefore it is ordered that in the
event of arrest of petitioner he will be released on
bail on his furnishing personal bonds to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioner
shall join investigation as and when required by the
police. Petitioner shall not leave the country without
prior permission of this Court. The interrogation if
any, shall .be made in the presence of counsel for the
petitioner. Ashish Kumar, brother of the petitioner
who is on bail in pursuance of orders of this court
shall remain on bail. Ashish Kumar shall also join
investigat~on as and when required by the police and
shall not leave the country without the prior
permission of this Court. The prayer of the State
for taking into custody the petitioner and his
brother, Ashish Kumar is declined. As far as FIR
No.44 dated 10.3.1994 is concerned, I am of the
view that complaint on the basis of which FIR No.44
dated 10.3.1994 was registered is nothing but a
repetition of the statement of the Chief Manager
recorded under Section 161 CrPC in FIR No.22.
Though tne counsel for the State tried to draw
dist.inct.ion between the statement made under
Section 161 CrPC and FIR No.44 dated 10.3.1994,

46
but on perusal of both, I find that there is no
material difference. The allegations contained in
the complaint relate to misappropriation of the
amount on account of breach of the contract. At
present, I am not going into the question as to
whether the contract· which was entered into by
proprietors of Saini Motors and parents of the
petitioner and the bank and also the petitioners who
were guarantors, was opposed to public policy and
whether the case is of civil nature and relates to the
breach of the contract or whether there was any
misappropriation of the amount of the bank, because
this is a matter still to be enquired into by the
Investigating Agency. For securing the interest of
.
the bank, a direction is hereby issued to the chief
Manager of the Allahabad Bank to file statement of
account showing as to what amount is due from the
two firms. A copy of the said statement under
registered cover shall also be sent to the petitioner,
who underttakes to clear the dues within 30 days and
further undertakes that till the time the payment is

~
made, the FDRs which are lying deposited with the
bank as security be not released to him.

47
D.
Accordingly, petitioner and his brother,
Ashish Kumar, in the event of their arrest in. FIR
No.44 dated 10.3.1994 shall be released on bail on
their furnishing personal bonds to the satisfaction
of the Arresting Officer. The other con,ditions of
their joining investigation, in the presence of their
counsel, as and when required, and not leaving the
country without prior permission of this Court, shall
remain in this case as well. In case any fresh case is
registered against them, at least a week's notice
under registered cover shall be given to the
petitioner/ his brother, Ashish Kumar, or shall be
delivered to their counsel Sh. R.K. Talwar, Advocate,
District Courts, Ludhiana. As regards the contention
of counsel for the petitioner for taking appropriate
action against the police officials, on the allegations
that Ashish Kumar was kept in illegal custody from
24.2.1994 _to 2.3.1994 and that he was kept in police
custody despite the order of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ludhiana, remanding him to judicial
custody, and also that Pramod Kumar, brother of the
petitioner, Shri Ali, Mukhtiar Singh, Driver and
petitioner'.s brother servant and petitioner's brother
in law, were taken in custody by the police on the

48
night of 7th March,.1994 ancf Amar Kaur taken in
custody on 8.3J994, I find that these allegations
require to be probed into because the State has
vehemently denied the same.
Consequently~ keeping in view the peculiar
facts and circumstances of this case and considering
that serious allegations have been made against a
very responsible police officer not below the rank of
an SSP. I am of the view that it would be
appropriate if some Judicial Officer is appointed as
an Inquiry Officer to go into these allegations and
submit a ·eport to this Court.

1
Accordingly, the
District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana, is
hereby appointed as an Inquiry Officer to go into
the aforesaid allegations and submit a report to this
Court within two months from today. Suo-moto
proceedings initiated, under the Contempt of courts
Act, against Mr. Sumedh Singh Saini, SSP. and Mr.
Paramjit Singh, SHO, shall remain in abeyance till
the report is submitted by the learned District and
Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Haryana. The security
provided to the petitioner is no more required and
therefore. it is now ordered that the same shall be
withdrawn, and to this effect, an intimation be sent

49
to the Inspector General of Police, Chandigarh. The
case to come up after the receipt of report.
March 15, 1994."
38 On 16.3.1994 another application was filed u/s. 482 CrPC
by the counsel for Ashish Kumar to the effect that after
granting anticipatory bail to Vinod Kumar in FIR No. 22 and Vined
Kumar and Ashish Kumar in FIR No.44, Vinod Kumar told his
brother Ashish Kumar and Pramod Kumar in the parking of
Hon'ble High Court that he was going to Ludhiana to get the ashes
of his deceased father with S.S. Sandhu, accused No.2 and they
were to wait for him at Chandigarh and Vinod Kumar left for
Ludhiana with accused No.2 in car No. PB-lOJ-7614 driven by
driver Mukhtiar Singh and that Ashish Kumar telephoned his
brother in law Ashok Kumar at Ludhiana to wait for Vined Kumar
at the cremation ground and then Ashok Kumar left his house to
wait for Vinod Kumar and thereafter no information was received
about the whereabouts of Vinod Kumar, his brother in law Ashok
Kumar and driver Mukhtiar Singh and it was alleged that police at
Ludhiana on the orders of accused No.1,2 and 3 have abducted
Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh and they
apprehended that they might have been liquidated. This
application was accompanied by the affidavit of Ashish Kumar and

- .
notice was issued to Advocate General Punjab and on the

.... ---.;
50
instruction of accused No.2, AG Punjab stated that Vinod Kumar
had gone in car with accused No.2 to Police Station Ludhiana to
tell SHO the gist of the order passed by the Court and
thereafter Vinod Kumar left the police station and then accused
No.2 also left the police station.
39 On 18.3.1994 the Hon'ble High Court observed that it
looks very improbable that Vinod Kumar who was already on bail,
would opt to go to police station to brief the SHO who was much
subordinate officer compared to Superintendent of Pol!ce and
that the Superintendent of Police could have informed the SHO
about the orders and directions of this Court and particularly
when request of Vinod Kumar had already been accepted by the

r
Police that he shall not be interrogated before 19.3.1994. The
state was given time to search Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumar and
Mukhtiar Singh. Thereafter on 24.3.1994 the Hon'ble Mr.
Justice Mr. V.K. Jhanji of Punjab and Haryana vide his detailed
order directed that the matter be investigated by Central Bureau
of Investigation by treating the information as of a cognizable
offence and to commence the investigation as per Code of
Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Judge again reiterated it was
very difficult to accept that Vinod Kumar who was already on bail
would go on his volition to police station Ludhiana to apprise the
SHO of the order of the Court and request him to interrogate

51
him only on 19.3.1994 after he had immersed the ashes of his
father because SP S.S. Sandhu had already acceded to this
request made by Vinod Kumar on 15.3.1994 itself after the
pronouncement of the order.
40 PW-10 Narender Singh Saini, partner of M/s. Saini Motors
stated in his statenieni' u/s.161 Cr.PC that after breaking away of
the marriage of Malika who is the sister of accused No.1, her
brothers had become inimical to them which culminated to the
extent of heavy revenge after agency given to them by Maruti
Udyog in the year 1984 and at one point of time accused No.1 and
_his family had a program to finish them because the family in
which his sister Malika was remarried was not as affluent as their
family and because of income from the Maruti Udyog. PW-9 Smt.
Minakshi Saini who is also partner of M/s. Saini Motors and wife
of Narender Saini stated that accused No.1 had personal enmity
with them and he got registered four cases during his first
tenure and two cases in his second tenure and accused No.1
wanted to finish them in all respect and financially and a.:~~sed
No.1 had also instituted false cases against all those persons
~
from whom they have taken finance and accused No.1 also got
instituted false cases against Vinod Kumar Walia and his family
members. So this prima facie prove that accused No.1 was having
enmity with Mis. Saini Motors.

52
1q
~
41 PW-18 Smt. Amar Kaur who is the mother of Vinod Kumar
and Ashish Kumar stated that on 24.2.1994 the police arrested

\.
· her son Ashish Kumar from his residence and the police was
harassing them in order to arrest Vinod Kumar. She also stated
that Vinod Kumar filed a case in the Hon'ble High court at
Chandigarh and he came to attend last rites of his father and he
left ~udhiana as he was apprehending threats to his life. He also
, · stated that on 7.3.1994 the police raided their house and

I
arrested his son Pramod Kumar, servant Pappu @ Chotu and a
servant of his son in law namely Ali and on the way they also
~
arrested his son in law Rajender Kumar. She also stated that
next morning she wcis also arrested and taken to police station
and the police was harassing them to present persons Vinod

'
Kumar and Ashish Kumar and to withdraw the cases instituted
against the police.. PW-17 Smt. Bala@ Bhupender Bala who is the
wife of Vinod Kumar stated that on 24.2.1994 accused No.3
Paramjit Singh, SHO, PS Focal Point Ludhiana came to their house
and took away Ashish. Kumar along with various documents and
they were also searching Vinod Kumar in the house. She also
stated that on 7.3.1994 at about 11.00 I 11.30 PM, they received
a telephonic call of Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar and at that
time the door of his room was pushed and she saw accused No.3
with various police personnel and they entered the room and were
mn-"?"!lffil~
53
abusing them and searching Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar and
receiver of the telephone was hanging on the bed and while going
the police took with them Pramod Kumar, servant Rajender @
Chotu, orderly Ali and driver Mukhtiar Singh and on the next
morning at about 7.00 I 7.30 AM accused No.3 again raided their
house and arrested her mother in law Smt. Amar Kaur and on
7.3.1994 the police also arrested Rajender Walia, and that all of
them were left off in the evening of 8.3.1994. She also stated
that as her husband had filed a case in the Hon'ble High Court
against accused No.1, and on his orders accused No.3 raided their
house to harass and insult them.
42 PW-6 Rajesh @ Pappu @ Chotu also stated that on
7.3.1994 at about 11.30 or 12 night police came to the house· in
two vehicles and they arrested him, Pramod Kumar, Mukhtiar
Singh and Ali and on the way they also arrested Rajender Kumar
who is brother in law of Pramod Kumar and they were kept in the
police lock up and on next day the police also brought Smt. Amar
Kaur and they all were let off in the evening near a hospital with
the direction that they should get arre~ted Vinod Kumar and
Ashish Kumar.
43 This prima fade proves that Ashish Kumar was arrested by
the police ·of PS focal Point Ludhiana headed by Paramjit Singh

54
'.
' '•i
··~·
accused No.3 on 24.2.1994 and accused No.3 along with his police
personnel also arrested Pramod Kumar, Ali, Rajesh Kumar @ Pappu
@ Chotu, Mukhtiar Singh and Rajender Kumar at about 11.30 PM
on 7.3.1994 and also arrested Smt. Amar Kaur on 8.3.1994 and
they were kept in police custody without any FIR illegally till the
evening of 8.3.1994.
44 PW-8 Jagan Nath having his tea shop near the house of
victim Vinod Kumar stated that he saw Ashok Kumar coming on a
scooter and when he saw the police, he took a back turn and then
he was followed by polke in their vehicles and later on he came to
know that Vi nod Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh have
been missing since 15.3.1994 and this goes to show that Ashok
Kumar was followed by police personnel on the evening of
15.3.1994 and thereafter he has not been heard of and has been
missing.
45 PW-21 K.K. Sharma, Chief Manager of Allahabad bank.
Ludhiana, stated that on 3.3.1994 Ashish Kumar was brought in
handcuff in their bank by one Bakshi who is either ASI or Sub
Inspector PS Focal Poirt Ludhiana along with two constables and
he enquired from him about loan account of Ashish Kumar and
Vinod Kumar and their family members and he told him the details
and Sh. Bakshi again approached him either on 5th or 6th or 7th
March.1994 and wanted details of loan in writing. He stated that

55
on 8.3.1994 accused No.3 contacted him in his bank and wanted a
letter regarding details of the account in which Vinod Kumar
Walia was the guarantor and Mis. Saini Motors were the trustee
and he prepared a letter addressed to the SHO and hqnded over
the same to him which was given in the form of a complaint and
later on he came to know from the newspaper report that it was
treated as a FIR and he had no intention to lodge FIR against
Mis. Saini Motors but only wanted to recover loan amount from
M/s. Saini Motors which was a matter pending in the civil suit. He
also stated that between 5.3.1994 to 7.3.1994, Superintendent of
Police Mr. Kalra also called him in his office and wanted to know
the details of the terms and conditions of the advances given to
Vinod Kumar and his family members and on sarne day Mr. Kalra
took him to the office of accused No.1 where besides accused
No.1, the accused No.2 and Nachhattar Singh were also present
'€
and accused No.1 i:llso enquired from him about the details of loan
and role of M/s. Saini Motors. This goes to show that accused
No.1 even as Senior Superintendent of Police of District Ludhiana
was taking unusual interest for lodging the case against M/s. Saini
Motors and wanted to implicate Vinod Kumar Walia and his family
members. It also shows that accused No.1 , accused No.2 and
accused No.3 procured a letter from Chief Manager to lodge FIR
against Vinok Kumar ar:-1 Ashish Kumar though PW-21 did not want
to lodge it. In FIR No.22 registered at PS Focal Point, stand of

rffttn!te51'
56
PW-21 was already recorded u/s.161 CrPC against Vinod Kumar
and Ashish Kumar and ~ew FIR No.44 was lodged on the basis of
1.etter by accused No.4 at PS Kotwali on the same facts though
there was no difference between the contents as held by Hon'ble
High Court on 15.3.2004. It also further shows that Ashish
Kumar was implicated in FIR No.22 by taking a statement of PW-
21 u/s.161 Cr.PC and both of them were got implicated by lodging
another FIR No.44 of PS Kotwali headed by accused No.4. This
also prima facie shows criminal conspiracy among all the four
accused persons against Vinod Kumar and Ashish Kumar and their
family.
46 Anticipatory Bail of Ashish Kumar and Vinod Kumar was
confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court on 15.3.1994 in the presence
of Addi. AG Punjab, accused No.1, accused No.2, accused No.3 and
Sh. Nachhattar Singh. PW-1 Ashish Kumar stated that after
hearing on 15.3.1994 on the instruction of Vinod Kumar, his driver
Mukhtiar Singh brought the car and accused No.2 sat on the rear
seat with Vinod Kumar and gunman of accused No.2 sat on the
front seat by the side of the driver Mukhtiar Singh and they left
and accused No.3 and Nachhatar Singh, DSP left the place and
the car of Vi nod Kumar was followed by one .ambassador car and a
Gypsy in which police personnel were sitting. He stated that
Vinod Kumar told them that he will bring ashes of his father from
·-· -·· ··-----· ------·-------
57
Ludhiana and will leave for Haridwar same night. Similarly PW-2
Pramod Kumar stated that he and his both brothers Vinod Kumar
and Ashish Kumar came out of the Hon'ble High Court at about
5.15 PM and when they were coming out they were surrounded by
the police personnel as, they wanted to issue a notice and at that
time he saw Vinod Kumar asking Mukhtiar Singh to bring his car
and in the car of Vinod Kumar, accused No.2 sat on the rear seat
with Vinod Kumar and his gunman sat on the front seat with the
driver and their car was followed by Gypsy and ambassador ~ar of
accused No.2. In his' affidavit filed before the Hon'ble High
Court accused No.2 took a stand that a notice was issued to Vinod
Kumar to join investigation in FIR No.22 and 44 on 16.3.1994 but
he expressed his unwillingness on account of ceremonies in
connection with death of his father and request for 17.3.1994
which was accepted by the Police. He also stated that he was to
go to Ludhiana in his car but it could not start due to petrol
trouble and Vinod Kumar told him that his car was ready and he
agreed to sit in his car as he was already knowing to him and
Vinod Kumar requested him to inform SHO Kotwali about the
order of the Hon'ble High Court and he should be allowed to
attend the investigation on 19.3.1994 instead of 17.3.1994 and he
took the lift in the car of Vinod kumar on his request and they
went to police station division No.I where accused No.4 was
briefed in the presence of Vinop Kumar about the orders of the
- - - " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " " ' " " " " " " ' " " " " " " " " ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·- ·----·····J
58
Hon'ble High court and he asked him not to interrogate him till
19.3.1994 and Vinod Kumar left in his car at 8.15 PM and he
himself returned to his residence. It has come in the statement
of Ashish Kumar and Pramod Kumar PW-1 and PW-2 that car of
Vinod Kumar in which accused no.2 was traveling was followed by
Gypsy and Ambassador car of accused No!2. If the accused No.2
was having his Gypsy and Ambassador car at his disposal, it
.
cannot be believed that he will take lift in the car of Vinod Kumar
particularly when in his own eyes and in estimation of Ludhiana
Police Station, Vinod Kumar was a criminal. Besides this. as
observed by the Hon'ble High Court when the police and accused
No.2 had already accepted the request of Vinod Kumar not to
interrogate him till 19.3.1994 why Vinod Kumar would ask accused
No.2 to inform accused No.4 about his interrogation on 19.3.1994.
Moreover accused No.2 being a police official of high stature will
not go to the police station headed by his subordinate and he
could have intimated accused No.4 on telephone I wireless also.
The stand of accused No.2 that his car could not start is also not
credible as he was already having two more vehicles i.e. Gypsy and
Ambassador car, with him as stated by PW-1 and PW-2 and he
would not take lift. But he had a clever mind which could not be
read by victim and he sat in car of Vinod Kumar tactfully. Prima
facie. the stand of accused No.2 does not have any merit. He
being SP, presumed to be a person having sharp and intelligent

59
mind and he applied his mind and took sudden decision and at that
time, presence or cor'\sultation of his co-conspirators was not
necessary and as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Firozuddin
Basheeruddin Case (Supra), if some steps are taken by one
conspirators, it will not affect the culpability of other
conspirators when they are associated with the object of
conspiracy. No doubt •accused No.1 was not there on 15.3.1994
but his absence at 5 PM in the High Court parking does not mean
his innocence. No doubt it could not be anticipated what would be
outcome of hearing on 15.3.1994 in Hon'ble High Court.
Conspiracy can be entered into on the basis of nifs and buts also"
and to achieve the object of criminal conspiracy at the available
opportunity, accused No.2 prima facie applied his mind. Accused
No.2 being S.P. must be presumed to know how to handle the now
situation even without consulting co-conspirators.
47 PW-1 Ashish K4mar stated that one Inder Shekhri r/o
Batala has been a class fell ow of his brother's wife Smt. Rachna
and elder brother of Inder Shekhri namely Sh. Ashwini Shekhri
has been a Congress MLA and later on they requested Ashwini
Shekhri through Inder Shekhri to get released all three persons,
and he alongwith Promod Kumar, Rachna, Rajender Kumar etc.
went to Ashwini Shekhri at Chandigarh where Inder Shekhri and
a PCO owner Rajesh Chadha were already there and in their

60
I
~
presence Ashwini Shekhri talked to accused No.1 that his party
has come to him and what was to do done and they were called at
Ludhiana and all of them met accused No.1 who assured them that
he will get their persons traced and they should talk to Sh. Shiv
Kumar, SP City and they were informed by Rajesh Chadha to meet
SP City and they talked to him through Rajesh Chadha. Shiv
Kumar, SP told them that if they were ready to talk they will not
back out from their promise and they will have to withdraw their
cases and Shiv "Kumar SP took them to accused No.1 who told
them to file the affidavit in the High Court to the effect that
they have talked to Vinod Kumar and he is all right and his
persons will bring their men. After twc;> days Shiv Kumar again
called them in his office and asked them to file affidavit and
thereafter they will receive telephonic call of their missing

.
persons. Thereafter affidavits were prepared and Rajesh Chadha
took the affidavits to accused No.1 and he informed that some
amendments were to be made in \the affidavits and they were
taken to accused No.1 again and hl told him that everything was
made correct and they should fill affidavit and Rajesh Chadha
will take them to Chandigarh. He further stated that on
24.5.1994 Rajesh Chadha took \them to one advocate and
affidavits were filed on 25.5.19d4 in the Hon'ble High Court.
After filing of affidavits they met Rajesh Chadah, Ashwini
Shekhri who assured them that tfteir persons would be coming.

, I
I
l
··---·--· -. ------~-------,.-----------------
61
I
~
I
within ten days and subsequent(! they continued to meet Shiv
Kumar, accused No.1, Rajesh Chadah and Ashwini Shekhri but
their persons did not come. Acclsed no.1 used to assure them
that they will release their perSonl after· talking to Director CBI.
I
In his further statement PW-1 Ashish Kumar stated that accused
No.I has tnade them to underltand that after hearing of

I
26.9.1994 in the High Court they might get three missing persons
by 28.9.1994 provided they behaved properly and do not cast any
blame on the police and they told accused No.1 through Ashwini
Shekhri and Rajesh Chadha as to how long them could wait. He
also stated that Rajesh Chadha told him that he was acting as a
mediator and they should not do any act which might offend the
police who will liquidate him and his family also. He told Mr.
Chadha that for the last six months accused No.1 and his police
were befooling them, and their family had been destroyed and
they would come out with the truth. He stated -that even on
12.9.1994 Shiv Kumar assured that they will get three missing
persons as soon as the time become favourable to them.
48 PW-2 Pramod Kumar also corroborated that there were
negotiations with accused no.1 through Rajesh Chadha and
Ashwini Shekhri, Shiv Kumar, SP for release of all three victims.
He also stated that negotiations continued till October, 1994 and
they told Rajesh Chadha and Ashwini Shekhri as to either they

l 62
should show their mi$Sing persons otherwise they would tell
everything to CBI. He also stated that in October 1994 they met
accused No.1 who was posted as DIG Chandigarh at his residence
and they insisted to show their missing persons but accused No.1
refused to say that their persons were in their custody and he
threatened them that in case they went to Court against him, he
would open a new chapter and then they told everything in the
court and CBI, and he had every apprehension that the police
might have killed their persons.
49 Similarly PW-3 'Rajender Kumar stated that there were
· negotiations with accused No.1 for release of their three persons.
It has also come in the statement of PW-4 Pradeep Kumar Walia
as well as PW-5 Mohinder Pal Walia @ Pammy. This evidence of
Ashish Kumar PW-1, Pramod Kumar PW-2, Rajender Kumar PW-3,
Pradeep Kumar Walia PW-4 and Mohinder Pai Walia PW-5 about
the negotiations with accused No.1 through Ashwini Shekhri,
Rajesh Chadha and Shiv Kumar, SP, prima fade creates a strong
suspicion that Vinod Kumar, Ashok Kumcir and Mukhtiar Singh
were abducted at the instance of accused No.1 in conspiracy with
accused No.2 to 4 and the commission of offence is probable
consequence.
-------=.~~.-~--·_ _- -'- - -"]

• 63
Y- 50 In the Hon'ble High Court Sh. Kultar Singh, SP head
quarter filed his report on 21.3.1994 along with four affidavits of
Fakir Chand, Darshan Singh, Om Prakash Sikka and Gurdyal Singh
Dhillon and attempteq to prove that Vinod Kumar was moving in
Ludhiana on his free will on the night of 15.3.1994 and in the
morning of 16.3.1994 and contacted several persons and borrowed
money from them and .he wanted to establish that Vinod Kumar
was not in custody of police and the Hon'ble High Court observed
in its order dated 14.9.1995 that it will highly inconceivable and
hard to believe that Vinod Kumar approached Gurdyal Singh and
Fakir Chand to borrow Rs.80,000/- in Ludhiana wherein his own
family was residing and those affidavits were inconsistent with
his financial status as he was a rich businessman and if he wanted
to raise funds he could have done so from his own funds.
Moreover no receipt was filed if any loan was taken by Vinod
Kumar. and had he been alive on 16.3.1994. there is no reason why
he should not go to his home to see his wife and his children who
were living in Ludhiana itself or to see his mother and relatives
particularly when his father had died on 6.3.1994 and he was to
go for immersion of the ashes of his father to Haridwar. The
letters written to Doordarshan are not part of charge sheet and
as per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa
Versus Debndra nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568. only document
filed with charge sheet are to be considered. As such this plea is

-----·- - ----------------------------
I 64
not tenable. Moreover, as per case of prosecution, Ashok Kumar
disappeared from Ludhiana and Vinod Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh
from Chandigarh and if seems to be typographical error and is a
matter of evidence. There is also no merit in the arguments of ·
defence counsel that date of conspiracy was 15.3.1994 as per
case of prosecution. In fact it is no where the case of
prosecution that date of conspiracy was 15.3.1994 and it is fiction

I
of mind of Accused No.1 to 4. There is no direct evidence about
the date of conspiracy.
51 Accused No.4 B.C. Tiwari had taken a stand that Vinod
Kumar along with accused No.2 came to him at about 8 PM on
15.3.1994 and he made•an entry in the case diary of FIR No.44 of
1994. The learned counsel for accused No.4 stated in his written
arguments and also orally argued that as per the observation of
CBI, a daily diary No.17 was recorded at 5.30 PM by which
accused No.4 had gone out for patrolling and returned to police
station at 11:30 PM afi:er patrolling duty. The Hon'ble High Court

/
in its order dated 14_9.1995 held that recording of case diary of
FIR No.44 of 1994 showing the presence of Vinod Kumar
contradicts the stand of accused No.4 while going through entry
in the Rojnamcha. There is no force in the arguments of the
learned counsel for accused No.4 that in case Vinod Kumar came
in the police station headed by accused No.4 on 15.3.1994 at 8

...
65
PM, then he left the police station of his own and he was not
involved in his abduction and in case case diary is contradictory.
by the Rojnamcha then accused No.4 was not present in the
premises of the Hon'ble High Court on 15.3.1994 and as such he
had no hand in his abduction. But in case of criminal conspiracy it
is not necessary that' all the conspirators must do the act
. themselves. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Firozuddin
Basheeruddin case (Supra) that even if some steps are resorted
to by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledge of
the others it will not affect the culpability of those others when
they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. Lodging
of FIR No.44 and making entry in case diary contrary to Daily
Diary Report when read together with all circumstances, prima
fade shows complicity of accused No.4 in the crime.
52 There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel
for accused No.1 that this case is fully covered by the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ~anjay Singh's Case (Supra).
That was a case of mere suspicion of motive and present matter
is a clear case of motiv.e. There is ~vidence to show that accused
No.1 wanted co-operation of the victim Vinod Kumar and his
family members to implicate Mis. Saini Motors to ruin them
financially and as Vinod Kumar refused to do it, he was
threatened detention or liquidation by accused No.1 and no

'&uwuerw®Nf
66
explanation has come from accused No.1 on this point at any point
of·time.
53 Now all these foets and circumstances when read together
in sequence will show that the victim Vinod Kumar expressed his
apprehension in his application in the Hon'ble High Court on
5.3.1994 that he was threatened illegal detention and liquidation
by accused No.1 as he refused to co-operate with accused NoJ to
implicate Mis. Saini Motors. He repeated it again and again and
lastly in reply dated 15.3.1994, the day he was abducted, filed in
the Hon'ble High Court. The accused No.1 being the Senior
Superintendent of Police of District Ludhiana was at the helm of
affairs of the police administration and is supposed to have
influence over all the police personnel working there in any
capacity in the entire district of Ludhiana which includes accused
No.2 S.S. Sandhu, SP, Paramjit Singh. SHo PS Focal Point
Ludhiana and B.C. Tiwari, SHO PS Kotwali, Ludhiana. This court
feels that a strong prima facie case is made out against accused
No.I to 4 that they have entered into a criminal conspiracy and in
pursuance of criminal conspiracy accused No.3 confined Ashish
Kumar, Pramod Kumar, Amar Kaur, Rajender @ Chotu and Ali in
illegal detention and in pursuance of criminal conspiracy they have
also abducted Vi nod ¥:_1mar, Ashok Kumar and Mukhtiar Singh on
15.3.1994 with the inte.ntion to murder them.

67
Point of Sanction u/s .197 CrPC.
54 It is provided u/s. 197 Cr.PC that when any person who is
or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable.
from his office save by or with the sanction of the. Government is
accused or any offence alleged to have been committed by him
while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with
the previous sanction in case of a person who is employed or as
the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged
offence employed in cqnnection with the affairs of the union, of
the Central Government, and in case of a person who is employed
or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of alleged
offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of
the State Government. This section recently came for
interpretation before Yhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Romesh Lal
Jain Versus Naginder Singh Rana and Others, AIR 2006,
Supreme Court 336, in which it was held that an orde.r of
sanction in terms of Section 197 CrPC is required to be obtained
when the offence complained against the public servant is
attributable to dischar·ge of his public duty or has a direct nexus
therewith, but the same would not be necessary when the
offence complained has nothing to do with the same.

68
55 If was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in Balbir Singh Versus state of Punjab, 2001 (4) RCR
(Criminal). that where police officers killed four persons in fake
encounter, sanction for their prosecution u/s.197 CrPC arid under
Punjab Distljrbed Area Act was not required as it can not be said
that the. accused police officials acted in discharge of their
official duty. It was also held by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in
Lakshmana Kunjihan versus C.R. Sulochana, 1978 Cri.L.J.
522, that where the complainant alleged that she was taken to
police station by the accused Superintendent of Police and
subjected to torture by some persons and that the accused
caught hold of tuft of her hair and hit her head against the wall
and she was subjected to torture both by accused and as per his
directions by the othe,-s and she fell unconscious and it was held
IJ
that the torture attributed to the accused had no direct 1
1
·~
··~
relations to the discharge of his official duty and no sanction
l
u/s.197 CrPC need to be obtained for his prosecution.
56 Moreover, the · essential requirement u/s. 197 CrPC
postulated for sanction to prosecute the public servant is that
the offence alleged against the public servant must hove been
done while acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official
duties. In such a situation, it postulates that the public servant's

, . -
,,~ 69
('· ..
act is in furtherance of the performance of his official duties.
When the public servant is alleged to have cotntnitted the

~
offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public
funds etc., it cannot be said that he acted in discharge of his
official duties because it is not the official duty of the public
servant to fabricate the false records and misappropriate the
public funds etc. in furtherance or in the discharge of his official
duties. This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Shambhu Nath Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Others (1997) 5
sec 326.
.
57 Learned counsel for accused No.1 argued that if the entire
prosecution case is·taken to be true for the sake of arguments

'
that the accused No.1 got registered all six false cases against
Mis. Saini Motors or against Vined Kumar and Ashish Kumar, this
must have been done by accused No.1 in discharge of his official
duty. The learned counsel for accused No.3 also argued that if
he had issued a notice u/s. 160 CrPC to Vined Kumar or registered
the FIR it was also a function in discharge of his duty. The
learned counsel for accused No.4 also argued that in case FIR
No.44 was registered or case diary was entered into, it was also a
function in discharge of his official duty and as such permission
u/s.197 CrPC is required to be taken _before launching
prosecution. n is argued that sanction order should be in the

name of Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution and
sanction order dated 7.2.1996 is not a speaking one as no reasons
are assigned therein and sanction is not granted to prosecute
accused u/s.364 IPC but only u/s.365 IPC. Ld. Special Public
Prosecutor had drawn my attention to the top of Sanction Order
where it is mentioned "Order of the Governor of Punjab" and this
was communicated by the Principal Secretary. He also referred
covering letter dated T2.1996 of the Sanction Order wherein it
is mentioned 'That sanction was granted after perusing the record
produced by CBI. Ld. PP argued that this shows that the State
Government has appli~d its mind before granting sanction for
prosecution. He also argued that sanction is granted for
prosecution of offence committed by public servant and which
section is applicable, is to be seen by the Court while deciding the
point of charge and it is not administrative function of the State
but Judicial function -:;f the Court and once sanction is granted
regarding the offence in question, this Court will decide which
section of IPC is applicable.
58 There is no merit in their respective arguments of defence
counsels. It is as held'in Sambhu Nath Mishra Case (Supra) that
it is not the function of the public servant to enter into criminal
conspiracy or to confine any person in wrongful confinement
without lodging any FIR or to abduct any person with the

71
intention to murder him in discharge of his official duty and
therefore sanction u/s.197 CrPC was not required to be taken in
the facts and circumstances of the case by the prosecution from
the State Government. The offence complained against accused
No.1 to 4 are not at all attributable to discharge of their public
duty or has any direct nexus therewith.
59 As such accused No.1 to 4 are liable to be charged u/s.
120-B r/w Sections 341, 342 and 364 IPC and substantive· charg,ey
is to be framed against accused No.1 u/s.364 IPC, against
accused No.2 u/s.364 IPC, against accused No.4 u/s.364 IPC and
against accused No.3 u/s. 341, 342 & 364 IPC. Charges be
framed accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Court ( VINOD GOEL )

Dated : ·6th December, 2006 Special Judge: CBI
,;
,_' % Delhi.
) .~:
t1~'
~·.:.:_"·."',',
f'.1 t1 n~~~ /t-<a, .
• lN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
0 '~
24.05.2010
J>l"esent:- Mr~ K.K. Sudi Sr. Advocate with Mr. Munat Malhotra for the .
petitioner.
Mr. A.K. Mehta for the accused B.C. Tewari.
Mr. A.S._ Chandhlok, ASG with Mi'; V.K. Saxena and Mr. Vikas Pahwa for the CBI.
Applicant Smt. Amar Kaur in person.
Crl.M.~. No. 6801/2010 in Crl. Revision P. No, 918/2006 ·
This is an application under Sectio.n 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedur.e, 1973 filed by one of the witnesses PW-1 Smt. Amar K~urfor recording
of her evidence along with evidence of another witness PW-9 Smt. Meenakshl Saini
on day to day basis. ·
Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, Additional Solicitor General is present on behalf of
the CBI. Mr. K.K; Sud, sr; Advocate.is present on behalf of accused S.S. Saini
and Mr. A.K. Mehta is present on behalf of accused B.C. Tev.iari.
Arguments on this application have been. heard.
Mr. K.K. Sud, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of accused S.S.·
Saini has opposed recording of evidence of. J?Vlf-1 and PW-9 on day to day basis. He
has submitted that on 11.10;2oos this Court had passed a c'onsent order for l::ross
examination of PW-1 Smt. Amar Kaµriri' the flrSt instance by a~cused. Sukhmohlnder ·
~?
Singh Sandhu. He has contended that since the accused persons in separate' -
revision petitions have chalienged the order on charges under Section 364 Cr. PC
framed against them, this Court should not direct for recording of cross examination
of any witness on day to day basis as prayed for in the instant application as the same,
according to him, is going to cause a prejudice to the accused persons.
I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments in opposition to
this application advanced on behalf of one of the accused S.S. Saini but I have
not been able to persuade myself to agre_e with the said submissions.
The application for direction to t_he trial court for recording of
evidence of PW-1 and PW-9 has been moved by one of the witnesses PW-1 Smt. Amar
Kaur Who Is present in Court on wheel chair. Four persons arrayed as accl.lsed
persons namely S.S. Saini, B.c~ Tewari, Paramjlt Singh and Sukhmohlnder.Singh
Sandhu are facing trial for offence under Sections 364/341/342/343 IPC before ·
the trial court. They all at the time of commission of alleged offence were
stated to be.public servants. The order on Charge against them has been
challenged by them inter-alia on the ground of want of sanction for their
prosecution in terms of Section 197 Cr.PC. The case for hearing on this point i_s
listed for 06.07;2010.
There is no stay of proceedings pending against the accused persons
before the court below. On 17 .10.2008, th ls Court had allowed cross examination
of PW-1 Smt. Amar Kaur by accused Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu in the first
instance. Relevant portion of order dated 17!10.2008_ is extracted below:-
lt is stated that Smt. Amar Kaur ls a senior citizen and an ailing lady
.I
r/
I
~
---1
ci,nd would be coming tomorrow for-Cross examination. It has been-agreed upon by ·.l
'
both the sides that In the peculiar circumstances, without prejudic~ to the ' l
i
{ights o.f the petitioner, Smt. -Amar Kaur,. PW-1 would be cross-examined by
fccused Sukhmohlnder Singh Sandhu In the. first inst;;1nce~·Both ~ides state that
they are ready to finally argued this m·atter.
lI
,Jhe witness PW-1 Smt•. Amar Kaur is stated to has already been cros.s-
'examined on behalf of accused Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu. She remains to tie
cross-examined by other three accused naJTiely S.S. Saini, B.C.• Tewari and · I•
.·I
Paramjit Singh. Since on 17.10.2008, this Court had·aJlowed· cross examination of .I

PW,-1 Smt. Amar Kaur by accused Sukhmohinder Singh.Sandhu in"the fi,rst in~~nce,
the trial court"vide its order cJated 30.04.201Q! copy:of.v.t_~lch has been pl~ced
on record during the course of hearing, has observed th;:it since the Court had
directed the cross examination of PW-1 Smt. Amar Kai.Ii' 1;>nly by accused
I
Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu in the first .instance, the case w~s adjou·med by·the . lj
trial court for 26.05.2010 at.the re.quest of CBI for. seeking cl~riflcatlons from! 1 I
this Court. lri the said or.der dated 30.04:2010 passed· by t'1e. trial court,. it is
noted that PW~l Smt. Amar Kaur is years of age•. No doubt, she· is .a senior
90 l
•I
I
citizen. She Is present in Court on wheel chair arid appears to b1i an old ~nd an Infirm l
.I
lady. PW-9 Smt. Meenakshl Saini is the aunt of.accused S.S. Saini and she i~ stated to .. 1
be suffering from serious.disease 9f canc~r.
In the facts and circumstances of the case;UW.ill~e expedient and i,11
the Interest of justice
- that the evidence.,,....-of PW~1-and PW-9 at least be iecorded
.
by the. trial court·~n dayto day'basls~·fheir cross examination by-all the-four·.

accused persons shall b_e carried,out as far as possible on·dayto day basis.
In view of the above, this ~pplication stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent.to the trial court immed•ately for I
· compliance.
Order Dastl under the signatures of ttle·court Master.
·.~'
.I
.t ·~:··---~";·~·'\,(':~. ~{
MAY 24, 2010 S.N.AGGARWAL, J

'a'
I
/
...... :..•
' - -----
"
·~
Annexure - P - 9
SCNo.: 69/09
CBI V s. Sumedh Singh Saini
29.06.2010
Present: Sh. Y. K. Saxena, Spl. PP for CBI with

complainant.
Additional Advocate General Punjab Sh. Rupender

Khosla.
After arguments had been concluded on the application for

personal appearance of accused no. 1 moved by CBI. Additional
Advocate General Punjab has appeared and filed an application
accompanied with an affidavit and documents regarding threats
to the life of accused no. 1, Sumedh Singh Saini serving as an
Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Punjab.
Another application has been moved for impleading State of
Punjab as the party only to the extent of bringing on record the
documents regarding security threats faced by Sumedh Singh
Saini.
The application and documents regarding the security threats to

accused no. 1 would be considered while passing the order on the
application moved by CBI directing the personal presence of
accused no. 1 Sumedh Singh Saini. However, I am of the view
that there is no ground to implead State of Punjab as a party, the
same is dismissed. The applications are accordingly disposed off.
(POONAM CHAUDHARY)
ASJ (Central- 01) I DELHI
29.06.2010
At2:30 PM
Present: Sh. Y. K. Saxena Spl. PP for CBI with complainant

m person.
Sh. Ajay Barman, counsel for accused no. 1.
Sh. Suraj Prakash, counsel for accused no. 2.
Vide separate orders announced in open court the application

moved by CBI directing appearance of accused no. 1 has been
disposed off.
The application moved by accused no. 1 and 2 for postponing the

dates of evidence are also disposed off.
(POONAM CHAUDHARY)
ASJ (Central- 01) I DELHI
29.06.2010
29.06.2010
1. Vide this order, I proceed to dispose of applications
moved by CBI for personal appearance of accused No. 1
Sumedh Singh Saini for identification by witnesses during
the recording of evidence and the applications moved by
accused Nos. 1 and 2 for postponing the dates fixed for
evidence.
2. Learned Senior Advocate Shri K. K. Sud has opposed the
application of CBI for personal appearance of accused No.
1 on various grounds inter-alia that the application 1s
misconceived, mala-fide, abuse of the process of law.
3. It is submitted on behalf of accused No. 1 that the Learned
Special Public Prosecutor CBI had not made any
submission on 30.04.10 and 26.05.10 for directing the
personal appearance of accused No. 1 Sumcdh Singh Saini,
but the application was filed after the matter was
adjourned on 26.05.2010 for evidence w.e.f 151 to 7111 July,
2010.
4. It is further submitted by Learned Senior Advocate Sh.

K.K. Sud that the application is vague and devoid of
merits. It is stated that the exemption from personal
appearance was first granted to accused Sumedh Singh
Saini vide order of Ld. CJM dated 21.11.2000 on the
ground of grave security threats after CBI gave no
objection in view of the threat to the life of accused
Sumedh Singh Saini.
5. It is further alleged on behalf of accused no. 1 that vide

order dated 17.12.04 the Learned Special Judge, Delhi
continued the personal exemption of accused No. 1. It is
also stated that the Learned Special Public Prosecutor CBI
conceded to the fact of security threat to accused No. 1,
yet as a formality got recorded that the application for
exemption from personal appearance of accused Sumedh
Singh Saini was opposed. It is also submitted that there is
no dispute regarding the security threat faced by accused
No. 1 Sumedh Singh Saini.
6. It is also argued on behalf of accused No. 1 that the

Learned Special Public Prosecutor did not oppose the
exemption of accused No. 1 and also did not raise the
issue of personal appearance of accused No. 1 and at the
time of examination of PW-1 Smt. Amar Kaur on
25.07.2008, 26.08.2008 & 30.04.2010.
7. It is further alleged that the identity of the accused No. 1

Sumedh Singh Saini is neither material nor in question and
he has been arrayed as an accused by virtue of holding an
office in his official capacity as SSP. The allegation
against him are that he was behind the alleged conspiracy.
It is stated that the case of prosecution is not regarding his
presence or participation in any physical act in the
allegation crime. It is stated even otherwise accused No. 1
has undertaken not to challenge or dispute his identity
during the recording of evidence of witnesses or seek any
adjournment on that ground.
8. It is further submitted by Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. K.K.

Sud that the identification of an accused is warranted at
the time of recording of the examination in chief of a
witness and examination in chief of PW -1 has already
been recorded whereas PW Meenakshi Saini whose
examination is to be recorded after the examination of
PW-1 is the real material aunt i.e. Mausi of accused
Sumedh Singh Saini and as such there cannot be any
question of dispute of identity as accused no. 1 admits his
relationship with PW Meenakshi Saini and also undertakes
not to dispute his identity during the examination of
witnesses. It is further alleged that the application has been
moved only to delay the proceedings to prejudice accused
and to satisfy vengeance of complainant.
9. It is further submitted that the present application has been

filed in utter disregard to the previous order passed by Ld.
Predecessor of this court continuing the exemption granted
to accused no. 1 Sumedh Singh Saini.
10. It is further submitted by Ld. Sr. Advocate Sh. K.K. Sud
that the annexure filed with the application from various
agencies clearly show that accused no. 1 is facing security
threat which includes massages from Scotland Yard police.
It is further alleged vide order dated 17.12.04 the Ld.
Predecessor of this court had observed personal
appearance of accused is not necessary specially in case of
accused no. 1 Sumedh Singh Saini, who faces serious
security and granted exemption from personal appearance
to accused no. 1 through his counsel till further orders.
11. It is further submitted that in the order dated 28.08.2009 it

was observed that Ld. Spl. PP for CBI opposes the
application moved by accused no. 1 Sumedh Singh Saini
seeking exemption from personal appearance, but had
conceded to the fact that accused no. 1 faces security
threat, accordingly the court had exempted the personal
appearance of accused through his counsel till his further
orders.
12. It is further stated that till date accused no. 1 has been
granted Z- category security and he is supposed to keep
his movements secret. It is also stated that the court
complex is frequent by various kind of persons which is
likely to expose accused no. 1 to the threat, as such no
case is made out for recall or review of the order granting
exemption to accused no. 1. It is prayed that the
application be dismissed.
13. I have heard Ld. Spl. PP for CBI, Sh. Y.K. Saxena and Ld.
Sr. Advocate Sh. K.K. Sud for accused no. 1 and perused
the record.
14. After arguments were concluded on 28.06.2010 and matter

was fixed for orders on 29.06.10, the Additional Advocate
General Punjab appeared on 29.006.2010 and placed on
record applications and documents regarding the threats to
the life of accused no. 1. It was submitted that Sumedh
Singh Saini is high on the 'hit list' of terrorist and has
been provided of Z-class security. It is further stated that
in the past two plans of terrorist to assassinate Sumedh
Singh Saini came to light. It is also stated that one of the
terrorist Devendar Pal Bhular @ Deepak presently lodged
in Tihar Jail has been awarded death sentences in a case of
bomb blast in which several persons lost their lives and
Devender Pal Bhullar was one of the accused in a bomb
blast case on Sumedh Singh Saini in which 3 persons list
their lives but Sumedh Singh Saini escaped with injuries.
It is alleged that in 2004 a group of terrorist aligned with
Devendar Pal Bhular to target Sumedh Singh Saini. It is
also submitted that it had been learnt that there have been
talks among terrorist in Patiala Jail and the terrorists and
terrorists aligned with Devender Pal Bhullar have again
planned to target Sumedh Singh Saini in Delhi. It is further
stated that talks between the terrorist suggested that there
is some nexus between Devender Pal Singh and the
complainant of this case. It is also stated that it has been
learnt that one Gmjeet Kaur vowed to kill Sumedh Singh
Saini and is willing to be a human bomb. A copy of letter
in this regard has been annexed. It is also stated that one
Bhagol Singh of KLF claimed the responsibility for
planting explosives at various places in Punjab and
Haryana to kill Sh. K.P.S. Gill, (former D.G.P.) and on
Sumedh Singh Saini.
In support of his contention Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. K.K.

Sud has placed reliance upon.
Jaswant Rai v/s State 1976 C.L.R. (Delhi)
Wherein it has been held as follows:
"Criminal Procedure Code, Section 205

Exemption of accused from personal appearance -
Order granting the exemption passed - Cannot be
cancelled without assigning any reason- The Court
exercises a judicial discretion in the matter and is
required to pass a speaking order containing the
reasons therefor."
Held, that a discretion vests m the Magistrate to grant

exemption to an accused person from appearing in court in
person. A similar discretion vests in the Magistrate to
direct an accused person who has been exempted from
personal appearance to appear personally in court on a
subsequent date. This discretion both as regards the grant
of exemption and the revocation of the exemption has to
be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or capriciously.
The Learned Magistrate has not given any reasons for
cancelling his previous order granting exemption to the
petitioner from personal appearance.
15. It is further contended by Ld. Senior Advocate Sh. K.K.

Sud that the order granting exemption from personal
appearance to an accused is the discretion of the court.
16. That Ld. Spl. PP for CBI has however alleged that accused
no. 1 had appeared on 06.12.2006 and 09.01.2007 and his
personal appearance is now essential for his identification
by witnesses. It is further submitted that being an accused
he cannot claim exemption from personal appearance and
be directed to be present on the dates fixed for evidence.
17. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the

Ld. Special PP for CBI Sh. Y.K. Saxena and Ld. Senior
Advocate Sh. K.K. Sud.
18. The examination in chief of PW 1 Smt. Amar Kaur has

already been recorded and PW at serial rio. 9 of list of
witnesses Meenakshi Saini is the real maternal aunt, Mausi
of accused. Considering the fact that accused no. 1 does
not challenge or dispute his identity. Moreover he was
exempted from personal appearance through his counsel
when the examination in chief of PW 1 was recorded, and
also considering the security threats to the life of accused
no. 1 Sumedh Singh Saini, his personal appearance is
exempted through his counsel, the further order during the
examination of PW1 and PW Smt. Meenakshi Saini,
subject to the condition that he shall not dispute his
identity during the examination of the witnesses and his
counsel shall be present on each and every date and will
not seek any adjournment and accused no. 1 shall appear
before court as and when directed to do so.
19. In the applications moved on behalf of accused no. 1 and 2

for posting the dates of examination of witnesses, it is
alleged that the duties for evidence of PWl and PW at
serial no. 9 of list of witnesses have been fixed in
pursuance of the orders of Hon 'ble High Court dated
24.05.2010.
20. It is further alleged that all the accused have filed petition
U/s 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 01.04.2010
distressing their applications U/s 91 Cr.P.C. which is
pending and prejudice would be caused to the accused in
case the matter is proceeded with without vital and
relevant documents being supplied to the accused by CBI.
It is further stated that the evidence of the witness be
recorded after the Hon 'ble High Court decides the petition
U/s 482 Cr. PC, filed by accused persons for supply of the
documents by CBI.
21. The application has been opposed by the Ld. Spl. PP for
CBI alleging that there is no stay of proceedings by
Hon'ble High Court. It is further submitted by Ld. Spl. PP
for CBI that the applications have been moved with
ulterior motive to delay the trial. It is also alleged that the
Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.05.2010 observed
. that evidence of PW 1 Amar Kaur and PW Meenakshi
Saini be recorded on day to day basis and their cress
examination by all accused be also conducted as far as
possible on day to day basis. It is also stated that the case
relates to the year 1994 the material witnesses are old sick
infirm as such their evidence is to be recorded at the
earliest.
22. I have heard the Ld. Special PP for CBI and Ld. Senior
Advocate Sh. K.K. Sud and Sh. Suraj Prakash counsel for
accused no. 2.
23. I am of the opinion that there is no ground for postponing

the dates fixed for evidence as there is no stay of
proceedings by Hon'ble High Court and the witnesses
PWJ Smt. Amar Kaur is an old infirm lady and PW Smt.
Meenakshi Saini at the Sr. no. 9 in list of witnesses is also
old and suffering from cancer. H.owever as the petition U/s
482 Cr.P.C. filed by accused is listed on 2nd and 6111 July in
the Hon 'ble Trial Court the dates of evidence would now
be 11 3/ 51 7.07.2010. The evidence would thereafter
continue day to day as matter is old one. Applications are
accordingly disposed of. A copy of this order be given
dasti to Ld. Spl. PP for CBI, as prayed.
(POONAM CHAUDHARY)
ASJ: Central- 01: THC: Delhi
29.06.2010
Annexure- P - 10
CBI V/s Sumedh Singh Saini & Others
SC No.: 44/2010
RC No. (2)S/94/CBIISIC-II
U/s: 120-B/342/365 IPC
09.09.2011
Present: Special PP for CBI is not present at this call.
Complainant Ashish Kumar is present with the counsel Mr.

Archit Upadyayay.
Ld. counsel for the complainant has informed the Court that
Special PP for CBI is still on the way.
Mr. Ajay Burman, Defence counsel for accused Sumedh

Singh Saini (A-1 ), whose presence has been exempted
through him.
Accused Sukhmohinder Singh (A-2), accused Paramjit Singh

(A-3) and accused Balbir Chand Tiwari (A-4) are present on
bail.
Mr. Suraj Parkash, defence counsel for accused

Sukhmohinder Singh No. A-2.
Mr. Amit Kumar, Proxy counsel for Mr. Praveen Sharma,

defence counsel for accused Paramjit Singh A-3.
Mr. A.K. Mehta, defence counsel for accused Balbir Chand

Tiwari (A-4).
A telegram dated 07.08.2011, addressed to the Hon'ble

Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, has been
received through Registrar, wherein a request has been made
to the Hon'ble Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi to order
day-to-day hearing in this case. The telegram has been
forwarded with the covering letter for necessary action by
this Court.
An application on the same lines has been moved under

Section 309 Cr.P.C. by the complainant I applicant seeking
permission for continuous of trial on day-to-day basis.
Since the Special PP for CBI is still on the way, matter is

passed over.
KSP
(Santosh Snehi Mann)

Additional Sessions Judge (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
09.09.2011
12:15 PM.
File taken up on oral submission of Mr. Ajay Burman,

defence counsel for accused A-1 that he has to leave to
attend a customary ritual on death of his relative.
Mr. Atul Saxena, proxy counsel for Mr. Y.K. Saxena,

Special PP for CBI has submitted that Mr. Y.K. Saxena is
caught in the traffic jam and still on the way.
On the request of Mr. Burman, matter is taken up for hearing.
Present: Mr. Atul Saxena, proxy counsel for Mr. Y.K.

Saxena, Special PP or CBI.
Complainant Ashish Kumar with Mr. Archit Upadyaya,

advocate.
Mr. Ajay Burman, defence counsel for A-1.
A-2 with his counsel Mr. Suraj Parkash.
A-3 with proxy counsel Mr. Amit Kumar.
A-4 With Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate.
Mr. Burman, defence counsel for A-1 has submitted that

copy of application moved by the complainant under Section
309 Cr.P.C. be supplied to him and he be given time to file
formal reply to the application.
Without going into the averments made by the complainant

in the application, Ld. Defence counsels present in the Court
have been asked to respond to the telegram of Mrs. Amar
Kaur dated 07.08.2011 addressed to the Hon'ble Chief
Justice, High Court of Delhi requesting to order day-to-day
hearing in this case.
Mr. Burman and the other counsels present in the Court
submitted that they have no contest to the above telegram
and leave it to the discretion of this Court.
The incident is of the year 1994. Charges were decided vide

order dated 06.12.2006 and formal charges were framed on
09.01.2007. Till date only two witnesses have been
examined. The record reveals that order on charges and
framing of charges has been challenged in the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in a revision petition, but I could not find on
record any order of the Hon'ble High Court staying the trial.
The record is very bulky. Ld. Prosecutor for the CBI and Ld.
Defence counsels may point out if there is any stay order
passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this case. No such
order has been pointed out.
Keeping in view the age of this case, I am of the opinion that

trial in this case should be held on day-to-day basis. It is
ordered accordingly.
Ld. Defence counsels submitted that reasonable time be

given to them to adjust their case diary. In view of the
submission, it is ordered that trial in this case shall be
conducted on day- to-day basis w.e.f. 12.10.2011. It is made
clear that this case shall be taken up after the cases already
listed on a particular day.
Put up for further prosecution evidence on 12.10.2011
onwards.
Prosecution to start with examination of the women

witnesses. Summons be issued to witness No. 16 Smt. Jindal
Kaur W/o Sh. Mukhtiar Singh and Witness No. 17 Smt. Bala
W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar, from the list of witnesses, on the date
fixed CBI to take all necessary steps for their service.
In view of the above, application moved by the complainant

under Section 309 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of accordingly.
Complainant has filed written submission about additional

grounds in support of the application dated 23.11.2007
alongwith list of documents. Copies are given to the accused.
reply be filed on the date fixed.
Put up for prosecution evidence on the date fixed.
(Santosh Snehi Mann)

Additional Sessions Judge (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
09.09.2011
------
ANN£XUA E-P.- .1.1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANIU BAJAJ CHANDNA.

SPECIAL IUDGE. CBI CPC ACT)-06. CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CBI Vs. Sumedh Singh Saini

RC No.2 (S)/1994
CC No.27734/16
Appearances: Sh. Y.K. Saxena, Special PP for CBI.

Sh. Ajay Burman, Senior Advocate with Sh. Hitesh
Sharma, Advocate for accused No.1.
Sh. Shivender Kumar Sharma, Advocate for A-3.
Ashish Kumar, complainant in person with Dr.
Shelly Sharma, Advocate.
Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu (A-2) and Balbir Chand

Tiwari (A-4) on bail.
ORDER
1. The present application has been moved u/s 311 CrPC
on behalf of accused Sumedh Singh Saini (A-1) seeking to
recall PW-9 Rajive Bhalla (former judge of Punjab and Haryana
High Court) for the purposes of further cross-examination.
2. It is pleaded in the application that cross-examination
of PW-9 was closed by the orders of the Court under
unfortunate circumstances. The senior counsel Sh.Ajay
Burman was to cross-examine the witness on 07 .04.2018, but
CBI Vs. S. S. Saini & Ors. l

he could not appear due to illness. Many material questions
relevant to the witness are to be put and accordingly accused
be given opportunity to conduct further cross-examination of
the witness.
3. The prosecution has filed reply to the application
strongly opposing the same on the ground that delay tactics

.
are being adopted by accused through his counsels. The
senior counsels representing the accused namely Sh. K.K.
Sood and Sh. Ajay Burman have been given sufficient
opportunities to cross-examine the witness at length. The
witness has been cross-examined on all issues. On
07 .04.2018, cross-examination was conducted by senior
counsel Sh.K.K.Sood without· expressing any intention that
cross-examination would also to be conducted by- another
counsel Sh. Ajay Burman and after cross-examining the
witness for sufficiently long time, senior Counsel K.K. Sood
expressed his inability to continue with the case and his
request for adjournment was declined by the Court. PW-9 has
also been cross-examined through counsel Sh.Ajay Burman
already on 08.11.2017 and 31.01.2018. There has been every
possible effort on behalf of accused to delay the trial which is

CBI Vs. S. S. Saini & Ors. 2
pending for more than 24 years and accordingly, the
application deserves to be dismissed with costs.
4. have heard arguments advanced by senior advocate
Sh. Ajay Bu~man for accused No.1 and Y.K. Saxena, special PP
for CBI on the application.
.
5. Ld. Senior counsel Sh. Ajay Burman argued that in the
interest of justice and fair trial an opportunity to further cross-
examine PW-9 has to be granted. He could not attend the
court on 07 .04.2018 being unwell and another senior counsel
Sh.K.K.Sood started cross-examination, but thereafter sought
adjournment which was declined by the Court. Referring to the
proceedings dated 09.02.2017, 25.04.2017, 30.05,2017,
29.08.2017, 19.09.2017, 24.10.2017, Id. counsel submitted
that delay has been caused by the prosecution on one pretext
or other. Even the cost imposed on 09.02.2017 has not been
paid till date. Even the transfer application was moved by the
complainant when faced adverse order and accordingly case
was transferred on 24.07 .2017. In support of his submissions,
Id. counsel has relied upon following cases:-

1
• P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of A.P. ,
• Ajay Gupta Vs. State 2 ;
• Anurag Sood Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 3 ;
• Ashok Sirpaul Vs. CBl 4 ;
• Ved Prakash Sharma Vs. State and Anr5 ;
• Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs. State 6 and
• Mannan S.K. Vs. State of West Benga17.
6. Arguing on behalf of prosecution Sh. Y.K. Saxena,
Special PP submitted that witness PW-9 Sh. Rajive Bhalla has
already been cross-examined exhaustively and substantially
covering every aspect and there is no ground to recall the
witness. The only purpose of defence is to delay the trial and
to cause harassment to the witness. The accused Sumedh
Singh Saini (A-1) is being represented by two senior advocates
and both of them cross-examined the witness. It is strongly
contended that transfer application was moved on behalf of A-
1 on 28.11.2013, when faced with adverse order leveling
1 (2012) 7 sec 56
2 2016 IX A.D. (DELHI) 275
3 2017 (1) JCC 525
4 2017 (3) JCC 2028
5 2013 (l) JCC 292
6 219 (2015) DLT 76
7 AIR 2014 SC 2950

allegations against the judge. It is important to note that
cross-examination of PW-3 continued for four years (2011 to
2015) and his cross-examination run into 362 pages, which
itself shows the intention of the defence to delay the
proceedings.
7. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions
and to the material appearing on record.
8. PW-9 Rajive Bhalla (Former Judge of Punjab and
Haryana High Court) was examined in chief on 09.02.2017,
19.09.2017 and 08.11.2017. The cross-examination of the
witness started on 08.11.2017 through senior advocate
Sh.Ajay Burman on behalf of A-1. On 30.01.2018, the witness
was cross-examined by senior advocate Sh.K.K.Sood. On
31.01.2018, the witness was cross-examined by senior
advocate Sh. Ajay Burman. On 07.04.2018, Sh.K.K.Sood
continued with the cross-examination of PW-9 but during the
same he submitted to the court that he is unable to continue
with the case and he would request Mr. Burman to conduct the
case further and sought adjournment. When the court
expressed its inclination not to grant adjournment, senior

advocate K.K. Sood stated that he does not find congenial
atmosphere in the Court to conduct the case further. In these
circumstances, the cross-examination of the witness was
closed.
9. The legal provision of section 311 Criminal Procedure
Code is an enabling provision whereby court is empowered to
summon any person as a witness or recall or re-examine any
witness at any stage of the proceedings or trial.
10. The charge-sheet in this case was filed on 13.08.2001
and trial is pending since 06.12.2006. On examining the
record, I find that there has been delay caused by both the
sides at different stages of the trial and transfer applications
were also moved when faced with adverse orders for which
both the sides need to introspect as sanctity of judicial
proceedings is required to be maintained by both the sides.
Even adverse orders are to be accepted gracefully subject to
the remedy of appeal or revision.
11. Coming to the issue of recalling PW-9, it is evident that
sufficient opportunities were afforded to the counsels for A-1

to cross-examine the witness and due to unjustified reasons
adjournment was not allowed and cross-examination was
closed. It is not the case where there has been denial of
opportunity or for plausible reasons, the defence has not been
able to cross-examine the witness. The defence counsels were
accommodated properly. On 07.04.2018, senior advocate K. K.
Sood did not mention about illness of sr. advocate Ajay
Burman and continued with the cross-examination, but in the
midest of the same, he wanted to opt out. The trial is not a
matter of convenience nor the provision u/s 311 CrPC is meant
for convenience of the defence. The cross-examination of PW-
9 on behalf of A-1, runs into 22 pages and he has been
sufficiently cross-examined. I find substance in the arguments
of Id. Prosecutor that defence has been adopting delay tactics
so that the patience of the witness gets exhausted.
12. It is important to note that previously also the same
conduct was adopted when PW-14 Smt. Bala was being
examined. Sh. K.K. Sood, during cross-examination of PW-14
adopted delay tactics and with the orders the cross-
examination was closed on 04.01.2018. The application u/s
311 CrPC was moved and taking lenient view, opportunity was

granted and Sh.Ajay Burman concluded the cross-examination
of PW14 on behalf of A-1. Even the order was passed that
only one counsel would be permitted to cross-examine the
witness on behalf of one accused. The relevant portion of
order dated 04.01.2018 is reproduced as follows:
II
At this stage, I have also considered the application

moved on behalf of A-1. The opportunity to cross-examine
PW-14 is sought and it is submitted that cross-examination
would be conducted by Senior Advocate Sh. Ajay Burman.
On examining the record, I find that Senior Advocate
Sh. K.K. Sood has been representing A-1 and he has been
conducting cross-examination of the witnesses. In the
morning session, Senior Advocate Sh. K.K. Sood conducted
lengthy cross-examination of PW-14 and for the reasons
recorded in the testimony itself cross-examination has been
closed.
It is submitted on behalf of prosecution that witness
(PW-14) is a cancer patient and she is not able to sustain
lengthy cross-examination and further her Chemotherapy
sessions are scheduled for subsequent weeks and she would
not be able to attend the court.
Sufficient opportunity and time duration has already
been granted for cross-examination of the witness on behalf
of A-1 but time was not properly utilized. The precious time of
the court was wasted in asking irrelevant and unrelated
questions. There is no justification to recall the witness,
however, since witness is present before the court and
CB1 Vs. S. S. Saini & Ors. 8

learned Senior Advocate Sh. Ajay Burman seeks limited time
to conclude further cross-examination, the opportunity is
allowed subject to the condition that the cross-examination
would be concluded today itself till the Court hours.
At this stage witness is put for cross-examination on
behalf of A-1, same is conducted and concluded at 4.40pm
and PW-14 is discharged.
It is henceforth made clear that that only one
counsel would be permitted to cross-examine the witness on
behalf of one accused. The court will not allow multiple
counsels to cross-examine the same witness on behalf of
same accused.
II
13. Same tactics have again been adopted while PW-9 was
being cross-examined and if this time also, the application u/s
311 CrPC is allowed, it would encourage the defence to further
delay the case.
14. Section 311 CrPC enables the court to use its
discretion, if justice requires. If any advocate is not willing
despite being present to cross-examine the witness or if the
advocate is not conducting himself properly and is trying to
abuse the process of law, the discretion of the court cannot be
granted in his favour. The judgments .relied upon on behalf of
defence deal with different fact situations and are not

applicable to the matter in hand.
15. After giving anxious consideration to all the facts and
circumstances, I find no reason to grant indulgence to the
defence. Application u/s 311 CrPC has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
16. The defence has also moved an application u/s 91
CrPC dated 27 .04.2018 seeking to direct the prosecution to
produce the statement of PW-9 Sh. Rajive Bhalla recorded by
10 during investigation of the case and incorporated in the
case diary and supply a copy thereof to the accused. The
reference to the portion of statement of PW-9 dated
07 .04.2018 is reproduced in this context:
"My statement was not recorded by any officer of

CBI but an officer visited my office and asked me some
questions to which I gave my replies. I do not remember the
name of the officer. He must have been the investigating
officer of the present case. As per my memory there was one
such visit. I cannot give the date, month or year. I do not
recollect the exact questions so put to me by the aforesaid
officer but they related to the disappearance of Mr. Vinod
Kumar Walia and others. As per my recollection, the
questions related to what transpired in the High Court after
Mr. Vinod Walia was granted anticipatory bail."
CBI Vs. S.S. Saini & Ors. 10

17. The defence has relied upon Col. S.J. Chowdhary Vs.
State through CBl 8 ;The State of Punjab Vs. Mohinder Singh and
others 9 and Ashutosh Verma Vs. CBl 10 on this aspect.
18. The prosecution has replied the application that no
statement of PW-9 was recorded by the investigating officer.
PW-9 has already been cross-examined at length on behalf of
defence and there is not justification to allow the application.
In support, prosecution has relied upon Balakram Vs. State of
UUarakhand & ors.11
19. On considering the submissions of both the sides, I find
no justification to allow the application of the defence for the
reasons below:
• Recording of evidence of PW-9 is already complete;
• There is nothing on record to suggest that statement
of PW-9 was recorded in the case diary or that same is
available with the prosecution;
• There is no specific statement of PW-9 or any other
8 1984 (25) DLT 254

9 1974 PLR 364
10 2015 (1) AD (Delhi) 708
11 Crl. Appeal No.694/2017 decided on 19.04.2017
CBl Vs. S.S. Saini & Ors. 11

witness that his statement was recorded by 10 in the
case diary. Rather, it is clearly stated by PW9 that his
statement was not recorded by any officer of the CBI,
although he was inquired during the investigation.
20. In the case of Col. S.J. Chowdhary Vs. State (supra) it
has been held that statement of witnesses recorded in police

.
diary can be demanded by accused, however, accused cannot
be supplied copies of day to day notings regarding
investigation.
21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no ground
to allow the application u/s 91 CrPC, and same is also
dismissed.
Announced in the open

Court on 14.09.2018.
ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
Special Judge-CBI (PC Act)-06
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi

ANNE )(ORE-P-12
@)
CBI Vs. Sumedh Singh Saini & Ors.

SC No. 02/2019
RC No. 2(S)/1994/CBl/SIC-V/SIC-II
CNR no. DLCTll-000213-2019
02.03.2024
Present: Sh. V.K. Pathak, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI.

Dr. Shelly Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant with
complainant Sh. Ashish Kumar.
A-1 Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini is permanently
exempted through his counsel Sh. Hitesh Sharma vide
order dated 28.08.2009.
A-2 Sb. Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu and A-3 Sh. Paramjit
Singh are in person.
A-4 Sh. Balbir Chand Tiwari is exempted vide order
dated 26.07.2023 till the conclusion of defence
evidence.
Sh. Ajay Burman, .Sr. Advocate with Sh. Hitesh Sharma, Ld.
Counsel for Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini (A-1).
Sh. Mukesh Kalia and Sh. Sunny Sharma, Ld. Counsel for Sh.
Paramjit Singh (A-3).
Sh. Virender Pramod in person.
In response to an application filed under Section 340 Cr.PC by

-
the prosecution, Sh. Vi.Fender Parmod appeared personally and gave his
detailed reply along with certain documents. Copy supplied.
2. I have heard arguments on the said application from Ld. PP

for CBI, Sh. Virender Parmod and Ld. Counsel for A-1. The question
whether the witness Sh. Virender Parmod gave his evidence falsely or not
is to be appreciated at the time of appreciation of entire evidence of both
sides and if it is found that the said witness gave a false evidence, action
\viii be initiated against him while passing the judgment itself.
3. D3W9 Sh. Gurmeet Singh is present and he has been examined,
cross-examined and discharged. Copy of documents produced by the Ld.
Counsel for A-1 and shown/exhibited during examination of the said
witness, have been filed on record. Their copies are supplied to the Ld. Sr.
PP for CBI. Ld. PP for CBI also produced certain documents and shown
to the said witness which were taken on record. Copy of the said
documents are supplied to the opposite counsel.
4. It is observed that many of the said documents filed today

from both sides are in Punjabi Gurumukhi language which is not the
language of the court nor readable. Accordingly, both sides are directed to
file true English translation of the said documents on the next date with
advance copy to the opposite side. If there is any other document of any
of the party in Punjabi language which was filed earlier, steps be taken in
the same way positively. The said exercise of filing translated copy of
document will not be allowed to be a ground for seeking adjournment.
5. Ld. Counsel for A-3 deposed that there is no other witness to

be examined and he wants to close defence evidence on behalf of A-3.
Accordingly, statement of A-3 is recorded separately in this regard. DE is
closed.
6. This is one of the oldest identified cases of this court and it is

required to be disposed of expeditiously as per the internal direction of
Hon'le High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, cooperation of both sides is
expected to address final arguments without taking any adjournment.
7. At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons stated that
the accused persons may be exempted to appear on the next dates of
hearing during the course of final arguments. Keeping in mind the fact
that the accused no. I was already exempted and that other accused
persons come from far flung area of Punjab, the said request is allowed
and all the accused persons are exempted to appear personally during the
stage of final arguments. However, they will be represented by their
advocate and there is no need to file any application for exemption.
8. Various other cases are already fixed for hearing/evidence

before this court upto next 2 months. As such, to accommodate this case
in this month, it is ordered that this case shall be taken up for final
arguments at 2.00 PM on 11.03.2024, 13.03.2024, 15.03.2024,
18.03.2024, 20.03.2024 and 22.03.2024 (at 2.00 PM). There is space in
the diary for 16.03.2024 therefore, arguments will be heard on
16.03.2024 from 11.00 AM onwards. It is also made clear that written
arguments, if any, be filed at the earliest and no adjournment shall be
given for the said purpose after the last date of final arguments.
(Naresh Kumar Laka)

Special Judge (PC Act) (CBl-20),
RADC/New Delhi/02.03.2024
(-}fVNEXt1AE-f- 13
@
C:81 Vs. Sumedh Singh Saini & Ors.,

SC No. 02/2019 .
RC No. 2(S)/1994/CBI/SIC-V/SIC-II
11.03.2024

Dr. Shelly Sharma, Ld. Counsel for complainant with
A-1 Sh. Sun1edh Singh Saini is permanently

exempted thro1,1gh his cQunsel Sh. Hitesh Sharma vide
order clat~<;I 28.08.2009.
I
A-3 Sh. Paramjit Singh appeared through VC.
A-4 Sh. l3albir Chand Tiwari in person.
Sh. Ajay Burman, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Hitesh Sharma, Ld.
Counsel for Sh. Sumedh Singh Saini (A-1).
Sh. Vaishnav Singh, Ld. Proxy counsel for Sh. S.S. Sandhu
(A2).
Sh. Mukesh Kalia (thro1,1.gh VC) with Ms. Kanika (VC) and
Sh. Sunny Shanna, Ld. Counsel for Sh. Paramjit Singh (A-3).
Vide order dated 02.03.2024, all the accused persons are

exempted to appear personally during final arguments.
2. Part final arguments heard at length on behalf of prosecution on

the brief facts of the case.
3. An application has be.en filed by Sh. Balbir Chand Tiwari (A-4)

seeking adjournment on the ground that his Advocate has been appointed
Defence Attorney and therefore, he is unable to appear.
4. In the last order, it is specifically mentioned that this is an
oldest identified case and it is required to be disposed of expeditiously as
per the internal direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Accordingly,
A4 is given a liberty to engage counsel at the earliest. There are various
dates have been fixed for final arguments, therefore, he can argue
personally or through Advocate.
5. Put up for further final arguments on date already fixed i.e.

13.03.2024 at 2.00 PM.
(Naresh Kumar Laka)

Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI-20),
RADCINew Delhi/11.03.2024
Af'JNEXl/Rf-P- [<
·@

SC No. 02/2019
13.03.2024
Present: Sh. V.K. Pathak, Ldj Sr. PP for CBI.

Dr. Shelly Sharma and Dr. Rajesh Gill (VC), Ld. Counsel
for complainant with complainant Sh. Ashish Kumar.
Sh. S.S. Sandhu (A2) and Sh. Balbir ChancJ Tiwari (A-4) in
person.
Sh. Paramjit Singh (A-3) appeared through VC.
Sh. Ajay Burman, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Hitesh Sharma and
Sh. Varun Sethi, Ld. Counsel for A-1.
Sh. Ajay Verma, Ld. Counsel for A-2.
Sh. Mukesh Kalia and Sh. Sunny Sharma, Ld. Counsel for
A-3.
Sh. Sunil Tiwari, New Counsel for A-4.
Fresh vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of A-4. An

application has been filed on behalf of A-4 seeking re-calling of PW-9
for his cross-examination. Copy supplied. Time is sought to file its
reply. Same be filed at the earliest.
Part final arguments heard at length on behalf of

prosecution.
[
Put up for reply and arguments on aforesaid application on

15.03.2024 at 1.00 PM and for further final arguments on 15.03.2024
at 2.00 PM.
(Naresh Kumar Laka)

AftlJVfXVR£-P-15

SC No. 02/2019
15.03.2024 At 1.00 PM

Dr. Shelly Shanna, Ld. Counsel for complainant with
Sh. Balbir Chand Tiwari (A-4) in person.
Sh. Sunil Tiwari, Ld. Counsel for A-4.
An application was filed under Section 311 Cr.PC seeking

recalling of PW-9 Sh. Raj iv Bhalla for cross-examination on behalf of A-
4. Reply to the same has been filed by the CBI. Copy supplied.
Arguments heard.
2. It is stated that on 07. 04.2018, opportunity to cross-examine

PW-9 Sh. Rajiv Bhalla was closed on behalf of other accused persons
and the witness was discharged but the accused no.4 did not have
opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. It is stated that said
proceedings took place owing to the reason of heated arguments as Ld.
Counsel for A-1 was cross-examining the said witness on various
irrelevant points.
3. Ld. PP for CBI opposed the present application on the ground

that no such step has been taken till date and the case is at its fag-end of
final arguments.
4. No doubt steps have not been taken at the earlier stage of the
case just after the time when the said opportunity was closed, yet this
court is not oblivious of the fact that the accused has a valuable right to
have a fair trial and to defend his case. Moreover, in the absence of giving
an opportunity to cross-examine the said witness, his testimony shall not
be read against accused no.4. For causing inconvenience to the witness, a
cost Gan be imposed. Accordingly, the present application is allowed
subject to following conditions:
(i) The applicant will pay cost of Rs. 10,000 to the said
witness.
(ii) The applicant will also pay cost of Rs. 10,000 to the
I
complainant.
(iii) This order is subject to availability of the said witness in
the ordinary course.
(iv) Cross-examination of the said witness will be completed
within one day, as assured by the Ld. Counsel for applicant.
(v) No adjournment shall be given to accused no. 4.
5. After taking consent ,of both sides and the fact that this case is
already fixed tomorrow, a Request Letter be sent to the said witness for
his appearance on 16.03.2024 at 10.30 AM. Copy of the order be sent
along with said letter on What'sApp mobile number of the said witness.
Copy of the order be given dasti.
(Naresh Kumar Laka)

SC No. 02/2019
15.03.2024 At 2.00 PM

Dr. Shelly Sharma and Dr. Rajesh Gill (VC), Ld. Counsel for
complainant with complainant Sh. Ashish Kumar.
order dated 28.08.2009 .
. Sh. S.S. Sandhu (A2) and Sh. Balbir Chand Tiwari (A-4) in
person.
Sh. Ajay Burman, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Hitesh Sharma and Sh.
Varun Sethi, Ld. Counsel for A-1.
Sh. Ajay Verma, Ld. Counsel for A-2.
Sh. Sunny Sharma, Ld. Counsel for A-3.
I
Further final arguments heard at length on behalf of
prosecution.
2. A request letter is sent to the PW-9 Justice Sh. Rajiv Bhalla

(Retired) for his appearance as a witness on 16.03.2024 on his What'sApp
Mobile Number. However, he informed the Ahlmad of this court that he is
out of station and he may come on 20.03.2024. Accordingly, a fresh
request letter be issued to him for his cross-examination on 20.03.2024 at
10:15 AM on his Whats'sApp mobile number.
3. Put \lP for further final arguments on the date already fixed i.e.
16.03.2024 at 11.00 AM. ·
(Naresh Kumar Laka)

RADC/N ew Delhi/15.03.2024
A rv rv b x v R £·-- P- 1'
@

SC No. 02/2019
16.03.2024 i
Dr. Shelly Shanna with Dr. Raj esh Gill, Ld. Counsel for
complainant with complainant Sh. Ashish Kumar.
Sh. S.S. Sandhu (A2) and Sh. Balbir Chand Tiwari (A-4) in
person.
Sh. Ajay Burman, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Hitesh Sharma and Sh.
Varun Sethi, Ld. Counsel for A-1.
Sh. Ajay Verma with Sh. Vaishnav Singh, Ld. Counsel for A-2.
Sh. Sunny Sharma, Ld. Counsel for A-3.
Further part final arguments heard at length on behalf of

prosecution. Now, Ld. PP for CBI seeks adjournment on the ground that
he is not prepared with regard to incident of 15.03.1994 and he needs
sufficient time to prepare for the same. Heard. Allowed.
2. The complainant states that he is not interested to receive the

cost of Rs. 10,000 which was imposed on A-4 by this court vide order
dated 15.03.2024. Accordingly, said cost of Rs. 10,000 be now deposited
in bank account of 'Bar Council of Delhi Indigent & Disabled
Lawyers' Ale No. 010104000183451, IFSC Code IBKL0000010 and A-
4 is directed to file proof of payment on the next date.
3. Put up for further final arguments on date already fixed i.e.

18.03.2024 at 2.00 PM. Copy of the order be given dasti to A-4, if
desired.
(Naresh Kumar Laka)
vk@ddc.nic.inRADC/New Delhi/16.03.2024
fl {VflJ £ 'l v !?. f- P-J:;
@

SC No. 02/2019
18.03.2024

Dr. Shelly Sharma with Dr. Rajesh Gill (through VC),
Ld. Counsel for complainant with complainant
Sh. Ashish Kumar.
Sh. S.S. Sandhu (A2), Sh. Paramjit Singh (A-3) and
Sh. Balbir Chand Tiwfri (A-4) in person.
.
Sh. Ajay Burman, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Hitesh Sharma
and Sh. Varun Sethi, Ld. Counsel for A-1.
Sh. Ajay Verma with Sh. Vaishnav Singh, Ld. Counsel for
A-2.
Sh. Mukesh Kalia with Sh. Sunny Sharma, Ld. Counsel
for A-3.
In terms of previous order, A-4 filed receipt of payment

of cost of Rs. 10,000. Same is taken on record.
I
Further part final arguments heard at length on behalf of
prosecution. Now, Ld. PP for CBI seeks adjournment on the ground
that he will argue on the defence point of the incident of 15.03.1994
and he needs sufficient time to prepare for the same. Heard.
Allowed.
Put up for cross-examination of PW-9 Sh. Rajiv Bhalla

on 20.03.2024 at 10.00 AM and further final arguments on date
already fixed i.e. 22.03.2024 at 2.00 PM.
(Naresh Kumar Laka)

RADC/N ew Delhi/18.03.2024
ANNE XVR~ -f- /$
<§
.•
HIGH COURT Oir DELHI: NEW DELHI
No. }J:LID3/GazAA/DHC/2024
Dated, the l 91h March, 2024
ORDER
Hot\'ble the Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Judges of this Court have been pleased to
make the following postings/transfers in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service with immediate
effect:-
s. Name of officer From To District to Remarks

No. (Mr./Ms.) I which
alh>catcd
1. M.K. Nagpal Special Judge District Judge Central Vice Mr.
[PC Act] [CBI]· (Commercial Sanjeev
09 (MPs/MLAs Court)-13, Kr.Singh
Cases), RACC Central, THC
2. Kaveri Baweja District Judge Special Judge - Vice Mr. M.K.
(Commercial [PC Act] [CBI]- · Nagpal
Court)-07, 09 (MPs/MLAs
Central, THC Cases), RACC
.
.J. Mukesh Kr.Gupta On repatriation District Judge Central Vice Ms.Kaveri
(Commercial Baweja
'
I
Court)-07,
Central, THC
4. Rajeev Bansal District Judge Special Judge - Vice Ms.
(Commercial (PC Act)(CBI)- Namrita
Court) (Digital)- 21, RACC Aggarwal
04, South, Saket since proceeded
on Deputation
s. Rajesh Kr.Goel Special Judge District Judge Central In the Court
(PC Act) (CBI)- (Commercial earlier presided
16, RACC Court)-02, over by Ms.
Ccntml, THC Kamini Lau
.
6. Sunena Sharma PO, MACT,
New Delhi,
Spccinl ,Judge
(PC Acl)(CBI)-
- Vice Mr. Naresh
Kr. Laka
J>HC 20, RACC
7. Sanjeev Kr.Singh District Jud~c District J\1dgc South Vice Mr. Raje~v
(Commcrci, I (Commorcinl Bansal
Court)-13, Court) (Digitnl)-
Central, THC 04, South, Saket
8. Gautam Manan ASJ-05-cum- ASJ-09, West, West Vice Mr. Sunil
ASJ(Elcctricity), THC Kumar Sharma
East, KKD
CJ}' Scanned with OKEN Scanner

9. Vrinda Kwnari AD.T-07, West, PO,MACT, New Delhi Vice Ms.
THC New Delhi, Sunena Sharma
PI-IC
10. Navita Kumari AS.T (POCSO)- ADJ-02, South- South East Vice Mr.
Bagha 04, North-West, East, Saket Munish Markan
Rohini
11. Tarun Sahrawat PO (MACT)-01, ASJ-04+Special South East Vice Mr. Arul
Shahdara, KKD Judge (NDPS), Varma
South-East, since proceeded
Saket on Deputation
12. Jagdish Kwnar PO (MACT)-02, Special Judge - Vice Mr. Rajesh
South-West, (PC Act) (CBI)- Kr.Goel
Dwarka 16, RACC
13. Mukesh Kumar·. ADJ-06, West, Special Judge - Vice Mr. Satish
THC (PC Act)(CBI)- Kr. Arora
05,RACC since proceeded
on Deputation
14. Munish Markan ADJ-02, South- ASJ(POCSO).: Shahdara Vice Mr.
East, Saket Q1, Shahdara, Dheeraj Mor
KKD
15. Naresh Kr.Laka Special Judge ADJ-07, Central ·vice Ms.
(PC Act)(CBI)- Central, THC Geetanjli Goel
20, RAC9 since proceeded
on Depµtation
16. Sudhanshu Kaushik ASJ-06, New ADJ-06, West, West Vice Mr.
Oelhi, PHC · THC Mukesh Kumar
17. Sharad Gupta ASJ-04 ASJ(FTC), South West Vice Ms.

(POCSO), South-West, Manika
South, Saket Dwarka
is. Vijay Kumar Jha ASJ (SC-RC)- PO (MACT)-01, Shahdara Vice Mr. Tarun
03, East, KKD Shahdara, KKD Sahrawat
19. Jasjeet Kaur ASJ(FTC), East, ASJ (POCSO)- North West Vice Ms.
KKD 04, North-West, Navita Kumari
Rohini Bagha
20. Sushant Changotra On repatriation ASJ (FTC), East, East Vice Ms. Jasjeet
KKD Kaur
21. Dheeraj Mor ASJ(~OCSO)- ASJ-06, Now New Delhi Vice Mr.
01, SbaP,dara1 Delhi, Pl-IC Sudhanshu
K:KD Kaushik
Qj: Scanned with OKEN Scanner

22. Sunil Kumar Shai·ma ASJ-09, West, Chairman (IT & Central Vice
THC Digitization), Mr. Pawan
Delhi District Kr.Jain
·1 Courts, attached since proceeded
to the O/o on Deputation
Principal Distt.
& Sessions
Judge (HQ),
THC
23. Manika ASJ(FTC), ASJ~04 South Vice Mr. Sharad
South-West, (POCSO), Gupta
Dwarka South, Saket
24. Atul Ahlawat ASJ(SC- ASJ(FTC), North East Vice Ms. Ankita
POCSO), South- North-East, Lal
East, Saket KKD
25. Ashish Rastogi On completion ASJ-05-cum- ·East Vice Mr.

of training ASJ (Electricity), Gautam Manan
East, KKD
26. Sudeep Raj Saini On completion PO (MACT)-02, South West Vice Mr.
of training South-West, Jagdish Kumar
Dwarka
-· ..
27. AnkitaLal ASJ(FTC), ASJ(SC- South East vice.Mr. Atul
North-East, POCSO), South- Ahlawat
KKD East, Saket
Notes:-
1. The judicial officers shall be under t~e control of the Principal District & Sessions Judge of
the district to which they have been allocated.
2. The judicial offic~i!,::J.!?qer transfer shall notify the cases in which they had reserved
judgments/orders<.S~~,£9.f~, relinquishing the charge of the court in terms of the
posting/transfer ()~g~f:~~WJw judicial officers shall pronounce Judgments/orders in all such
matters on the i9i!i~41;'f~ed or maximum within a period of 2-3 weeks thereof
notwithstanding ('i·qv'' ·<; iltransfer. Date of protimmcement shall be notified in the caus~
1 1
'
list of the court { 'the matter pertains as also of the court to which the judicial
officer has been tr nd on. the website.
3. The court of AS'.J; :oJ' .·East iKKEL(h

·<\i•'.<:·. · 'i·i·.'·'·,,··.,..." .', . . . . ,
.• itherto
, ·
pres1'ded over bY M.r. V"IJay Kum· ar
Jha) stands aboli{., .Ptiricr afOisfriCr&. · · KKD shall assign.
. -''.'": ,, . . , .... p. , :b.. • ·: . . Sessions Judge, East,
Q}\ Scanned with OKEN Scanner

the cases pending in the comt of Mr. Vijay Kumur .Thu which is being abolished, in other
existing com'ts dealing with rnpc cnscs.
4. The court of AD.1-07 1 West, Tis Hazari Court (hitherto presided over by Ms. Vrinda
K\unari) stands abolished. The Pl'incipal District & Sessions Judge, West, THC shall
assign the cases pending in the comt of Ms. Vrinda Kumari which is being abolished, in
other existing comts Qf same jurisdiction.
5. TI1c court of Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma, ADJ-08, West, Tis Hazari Court is re designated
as ADJ-07, West, Tis Hazari Court.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Sd/-
KANWAL JEET ARORA)
REGISTRAR GENERAL
Endst. No.
v~~s- '°'~· .
/D3/Gaz.INDHC/2024 Dated, the 19th March, 2024
Copy forwarded for infonnation and necessary action to: -
1. All the Principal District& Sessions Judges, Delhi.

2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI}, Rouse
Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi.
3. The Principal Judge, Family Courts (HQ), Dwarka Courts Complex, Dwarka. New
Delhi.
4. The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Nol'th Block, New Delhi.
S. The Member Secretary, Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiulu House, New Delhi.
6. The Direct.or (Administration), Delhi Judicial Academy, Dwul'ku, New Delhi.
7. The Principal Secretary {Law, Justice & Legislative Affairs). Govt. of NCT ()fDelhi,
New Delhi~ J I0002.
8. The Principal Secretiuy (Home), Oovt. ot'NCT or Delhi, New Delhi-110002.
9. The Principal Secrelary (Power). Govt, ol' NCT of Delhi, New Delhi-\ I0002.
JO. The Secretary (l.,,ffbQur), Govt. (lf NCT pf J)1;\hl, Shmmmth Mm·g, Oelhi- l l 0054.
J 1. The Direclor of Prosecution, Cl3l, Ulock No.3, ti Floor, COO Complex, Lodhi R'md,
New
Delhi-3.
12. The Director, Directornte of' Prosecution, Tis Huzuri, Delhi.
13. The Director General, Nurcoticll Control Bmcuu, We:;t Block,\ Wing-5., Scctor-07,
R.K.Puram, New Delhiw 110066.
14. The Commissioner of Police, Police Hendquurters, New Delhi.
Q'' Scanned with OKEN Scanner

15. The Commissioner, Delhi Municipal Corporation, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New
Delhi.
16. The Chairperson, New Delhi Municipal Committee, Palika Kendra, New Delhi.
17. The Registrar-cum-Secretary to Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, Delhi High Court,
New Delhi.
18. PS to all Hon'ble Judges, Delhi High Court, for information ofHon'ble Judges.
19. The JR-cum-P.A. to Registrar General, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
20. All Registrars, Delhi High Court, Ne'w Delhi.
21. The Joint Registrar (Vigilance-I), Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
22. The Joint Registrar (Vigilance-II), Delhl High Court, New Delhi.
23. The Joint Registrar (Gazette-IB), Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
24. The Pay & Accounts Officer, Tis Hazarn, Delhi.
25. Joint Registrar (IT), DHC, with request to display this order on website of Delhi High
Court.
26. The Hony. Secretary, Delhi High Court Bar Association, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
27. The Hony. Secretary, Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
28. The Hony. Secretary, New Delhi Bar Association, Patiala House, New Delhi.
29. The Hony. Secretary, Shahdara Bar Association, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
30. The Houy. Secretary, Rohini Courts :Sar Association, Rohini, New Delhi.
31. The Hony. Secretary, Dwarka Courts Bar Association, Dwarka, New Delhi.
32. The Hony. Secretary, Saket Courts Bar Association, Saket, New Delhi.
33. Personal file of the officer concerned.
34. Guard File.
(Raj Kumar Rawat)

JOINT REGISTRAR (GAZ.-IA)
CJ.~i Scanned with OKEN Scanner

DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

. . .Respondents
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. FOR
EXEMPTION FROM FILLING CERTIFIED COPIES, TRUE
TYPED COPIES, CERTIFIED COPIES OF DIM
ANNEXURES
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the applicant/petitioner has filed the accompanymg

petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking transfer of case.
2. That the entire facts leading to the filing of the captioned case
have been set out in detail in the accompanying petition and
are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. The
applicant/petitioner craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to
read the contents of the petition as paii of the present
application.
3. That the applicant has filed various documents/annexures with

the accompanying petition out of which few of them are dim
but are legible.
4. That the applicant has prayed for an urgent relief in the

present petition and to get the certified, legible and fair copies
of the said documents is not possible and even making a fair
typed copy of the same would not be feasible or possible as it
would take considerable time.
5. That the present application has been moved bonafide and in

the interest of justice. Grave prejudice would be caused to the
applicant/petitioner if the present application is not allowed.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed to this
Hon'ble Court to may kindly please to grant exemption from
filing the certified copy, true typed copies of dim annexures.
Through
~
New Delhi-110029
DATED 2-J, 03 .2024 EMAIL ID: Priyadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com
DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:

Versus

. . .Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I ASHISH KUMAR S/o Late Sh Ratan Singh aged about 61 years

R-32, South Ex, Part-II, New Delhi-110049do hereby solemnly
affirm and declare as under:
1. That I am the Petitioner in the captioned case and am aware of

the facts and circumstances of the case based upon my personal
/;;'"~~~:·(5;~:~-;;:'.~.~~- knowledge and hence am competent to depose this affidavit.
// l-.. 1)·,..---~~-, •. ·') '·'
I ·',,,. ""'·-'." \\
~ ;.~:~Vl~·~.~
(.()
. · ~ ' .
.~·
- "
~ New v:.-;.r,-
,,. . ~..
; . i.~.:~.'
\}(i\\\' I . ' /I
at the accompanying application u/s 482 Cr.P.C seeking
\ @Y :-- f'7 ~ ~~~:~foxemption from filing certified copies, true typed copies, dim
' . . --< ~~/-//
copies has been drafted by my counsel under my instructions,
contents of which may be read as part of this affidavit and the
same are true and correct to th_e best of my knowledge. The
legal information received is believed to be correct.
VERIFICATION:
-
,_ ...... ...~-~.-:--·'··~~·-.·. ~ '
\ -.... "'· '"' . r l " :) , 11 J
,_ ......".
\I f\iSti«" '-~r·\V'':Jd"J;P
,....... y•\t'"' 'l~~
L 'U~_/ l·
..
rt \ . . -~·r - r\j-::.;•·J \).:;\hi

L. r' . . ·.~·1 C :" r:i !·:-·,; s;:: t ~..:I~~-:~ , . ~ .... --------
\~.::..~-~-~-~--- -..------
m.
VAKALATNAMA
IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF âr pgfflr, /Ir {\levi
b: JSMzîljûMA
r^ 3 ^ -,7/52^ s
3 □ ii^-i Plaintiff or Defendant
S a p:
> CO V
'3 î
to u O ^.
S o
N 10 c
to 3) _
«i! VERSUS
g^lrtrdher or Appellant
Cc-mkA/. <JF TA;vcq.TTfa/i-rpA/ efendant
Respopdeflts
oSiOW ALL the whom these present shall come thai the undersigned appoint fiShVSh V
c/o 6.«Uc /?•>*«*? SHOU C/O f^3£r /'w-u jytu) RiH
to be the Advocate for the .. P.<nx.mMeA in the above
.mentioned case to do the following acts, deeds and things or any of them, that is to say:-
" > go
1. To act, appear, and plead in the above-mentioned case in this Court or any other
Court in which the same may be tried or heard in the first instance or in appeal or Letters
Patent Appeal or Review or Revision or Execution or any other stage its progress unit its
final decision.
2. To present, sign and verify, Pleading, Appeals, Letters Patent Appeals, Cross
objections or petition for executions review revision, withdrawal, compromise or other
petitions or affidavits or other documents as shall be deemed necessary or advisable for the
prosecution of the said casein all its stages.
K3
3. To withdraw'or comprornise the said case or submit to arbitration any differences or cn
disputes, that shall arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case.
4. To deposit, draw and receive moneys as grant receipts thereof by way of costs
refund or balance of security and other miscellaneous expenses from Courts or parties, and
to do all other acts and thins which may be necessary to be done for the progress and in the
course o prosecution of the said case.
5. To employ any other Legal Practitioner authorizing him to exercise the powers and
authorities hereby conferred upon the Advocate whenever he may think fit to do so.
AND 1/we hereby agree to ratify & certify whatever the Advocate or his substitute
shall do in the premises/proceedings.
AND i/we hereby agree not to hold the Advocate or his substitute responsible for the
result of the said case in consequence of his absence from the Court when the said case is
called up for hearing or otherwise.
AND I/we here agree that in the event of the whole or any part of the fee agreed by
me/us to be paid to the Advocate remaining unpaid he shall be entitled to withdraw from the
prosecution of the said case until the same is paid and if any cost are allowed for an
adjournment, the Advocate would be entitled to the same.
AND I/we hereby agree that the Advocate will not found to appear for us if the case is
transferred to any other Court or the Court sits at any place other than its normal place of
sitting .& if the case.
IN WITNESS WHERE OF I/we hereby onto set my/our hands to these presents the
contents which have been explained to an3 understood by me/us.
This the ....Ur. day of...f1A(^tt. 2024
itness.. ,
cepted
(Signature 6r thumb Impression)
A of the Clients
: : ~
. : ~
3/21/24, 4:51 PM Gmail -ADVANCE COPY- SERVICE-ASHISH KUMAR VS CBI AND ORS- HON'BLE HIGH COU~T OF DELHI
Gm ail adarsh priyadarshi <priyadarshi.adarsh@grnail.com>
ADVANCE COPY- SERVICE-ASHISH KUMAR VS CBI AND ORS- HON'BLE HIGH

COURT OF DELHI
1 message
adarsh priyadarshi <priyadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com> Thu, Mar 21, ?024 at 4:51 PM

To: spscu6del@cbi.gov.in
To,
Standing Counsel
CBI
Delhi High Court
Re: Ashish Kumar Vs CBI and Ors (Transfer Petition)_

Respected Sir,
Please find enclosed an advance copy of the transfer petition on behalf of the Petitioner Ashish Kumar,:which we are
filing . The petition is likely to be listed on 27 or 28 of March, 2024.
Please fe~I free to contact me in case you need any other information/ document.
Thanks and Regards,
Adarsh Priyadarshi
Advocate
Counsel for the Appellant
A-2/74, LGF
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi
Mobile no 8806662747
""' Transfer Petition.pdf

k!.::l 7462K
https://mail .google. com/mail/u/O/?ik=3f32a35617 &view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r-1572605590227681458&simpl=msg-a:r~ 6124 78909... 1/1

•t
269
•
\
I
;:•.: i!~(~l . t....;.- a;J -J

F ""W~ : C~-l ::. tt,:.iO ~!-Li:;.;_.; E
'
' '. .......
..... J... ..-~
t. :-
!1:: ! ~.=~I i:cs..,Jia.: ..:. :;

< Trc~' an .-.... ~~c :;:c;: .c:ov.1'11
) ;.l•1a j !E~~~1).<k;1.1 ~•r ~·s~; . ~~Y :.a'e>
..
f ;
<
lirti en -.1r.C~t.qav.111)
~ul 1~206e6i.&I <•ir ~••••· St11 S.~>
•
:.it:lio.»CU\'IJiusU.21
,rnct 111 •·lllllWDCKt.p.w
Oat <llNr 11Ht1, Stay Safti
....
m.
VAKALATNAMA
IN THE HON'BLE COURT OF âr pgfflr, /Ir {\levi
b: JSMzîljûMA
r^ 3 ^ -,7/52^ s
3 □ ii^-i Plaintiff or Defendant
S a p:
> CO V
'3 î
to u O ^.
S o
N 10 c
to 3) _
«i! VERSUS
g^lrtrdher or Appellant
Cc-mkA/. <JF TA;vcq.TTfa/i-rpA/ efendant
Respopdeflts
oSiOW ALL the whom these present shall come thai the undersigned appoint fiShVSh V
c/o 6.«Uc /?•>*«*? SHOU C/O f^3£r /'w-u jytu) RiH
to be the Advocate for the .. P.<nx.mMeA in the above
.mentioned case to do the following acts, deeds and things or any of them, that is to say:-
" > go
1. To act, appear, and plead in the above-mentioned case in this Court or any other
Court in which the same may be tried or heard in the first instance or in appeal or Letters
Patent Appeal or Review or Revision or Execution or any other stage its progress unit its
final decision.
2. To present, sign and verify, Pleading, Appeals, Letters Patent Appeals, Cross
objections or petition for executions review revision, withdrawal, compromise or other
petitions or affidavits or other documents as shall be deemed necessary or advisable for the
prosecution of the said casein all its stages.
K3
3. To withdraw'or comprornise the said case or submit to arbitration any differences or cn
disputes, that shall arise touching or in any manner relating to the said case.
4. To deposit, draw and receive moneys as grant receipts thereof by way of costs
refund or balance of security and other miscellaneous expenses from Courts or parties, and
to do all other acts and thins which may be necessary to be done for the progress and in the
course o prosecution of the said case.
5. To employ any other Legal Practitioner authorizing him to exercise the powers and
authorities hereby conferred upon the Advocate whenever he may think fit to do so.
AND 1/we hereby agree to ratify & certify whatever the Advocate or his substitute
shall do in the premises/proceedings.
AND i/we hereby agree not to hold the Advocate or his substitute responsible for the
result of the said case in consequence of his absence from the Court when the said case is
called up for hearing or otherwise.
AND I/we here agree that in the event of the whole or any part of the fee agreed by
me/us to be paid to the Advocate remaining unpaid he shall be entitled to withdraw from the
prosecution of the said case until the same is paid and if any cost are allowed for an
adjournment, the Advocate would be entitled to the same.
AND I/we hereby agree that the Advocate will not found to appear for us if the case is
transferred to any other Court or the Court sits at any place other than its normal place of
sitting .& if the case.
IN WITNESS WHERE OF I/we hereby onto set my/our hands to these presents the
contents which have been explained to an3 understood by me/us.
This the ....Ur. day of...f1A(^tt. 2024
itness.. ,
cepted
(Signature 6r thumb Impression)
A of the Clients

Ashish Kumar - Edited

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ashish Kumar - Edited

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW

IN THE MATTER OF:

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & Ors .

16. ANNEXURE P-10.

25 Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for

27 Proof Of Service 268-269

IN THE MATTER OF:

ADARSH PRIYADARSHI AND ASSOCIATES

IN THE MATTER OF:

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & Ors .

"Urgent relief is prayed for."

ADARSH PRIYADARSHI AND ASSOCIATES

Advocates for Applicant

NEW DELHI Mb. No 8806662746

DATED 2/.03.2024 EMAIL ID: Privadarshi.adarsh@gmail.com

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW

Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF;'

ASHISH KUMAR ...Petitioner

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & Ors.

Advocates for Applicant

NEW DELHI Mb. No 8806662746

IN THE MATTER OF:

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & Ors .

... .Jn all probability these persons are no

15.10.2004 On a transfer Petition filed by the mother of

ADARSH PRIYADARSHI AND ASSOCIATES

IN THE MATTER OF:

(PETITION UNDER SECTION 407 READ WITH SECTION 482

1. Central Bureau of Investigation

2. Sumedh Singh Saini

3. Sukhmohinder Singh Sandhu

Rio Officers Flat, Civil Lines, Ludhiana

5. Balbir Chand Tiwari

ADARSH PRIYADARSHI AND ASSOCIATES

IN THE MATTER OF:

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & Ors .

PETITION UNDER SECTION 407 READ WITH SECTION

1. That the present petition is being filed by the Petitioner

2. That the Respondent no 1, CBI is the investigating and

3. That Respondent no 2, was a high ranking and influential

4. That The relief given by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab

A copy of order dated 24.03 .1994 alongwith its typed copy is

5. That pursuant to the above order of the Hon'ble High Court,

6. That thereafter, on 14/08/1995 in pursuance to order dated

8. That it is pertinent to mention here that in complete disregard

11. That on 30.06.2000, Respondent no 1 filed chargesheet

12.That the Respondent Nos. 2 to No. 5 took every effort to

16.That on several occasions, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as

" However, it is pointed out that even after the

11. Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

"In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will

111. Order passed by the Ld. trial court in the present

"/ am of the opinion that there is no ground for

iv. Order passed by the Ld. trial court in the present

17. That despite these orders, the accused were successful in

18. The prosecution cited 36 witnesses and due to prolonged trial

19.That On 14.09.2018 an application was moved by respondent

20.That by order dated 02.03.2024, the Ld Trial Court while

21. That part final arguments were agam heard at length on

22.That part final arguments were heard at length on 13.03.2024.

23. That by order dated 15 .03 .2024, the application of accused no

24.That part final arguments were heard at length on 16.03.2024.

~'---'-~-:-~~~~~~~~~~..:_~_.:.1._.- ~ ~-·-_·_·~1~ ~ -t~ f~l~- ~- 1

0 the case of the State, the involvement otAshis~ Kum~:-:.