Anticipatory Bail of Ex CM of Punjab Parkash Badal Allowed

On dt. 16^th March 2023, Addl. Session Judge, while deciding the Anticipatory bail of EX CM Parkash Singh Badal and EX Home Minister of Punjab Faridkot Court, observed that the Special Investigation Team had collected prima facie evidence suggesting that there was a clandestine conspiracy by the applicants to give free hands and tactical support to police officers in unleashing brutality on peaceful protestors. The court held that due to the gravity of the offense, the applicants were not entitled to anticipatory bail. However, given the advanced age and medical condition of applicant no.1, Parkash Singh Badal, the court extended the benefit of bail to him. The court also found no evidence to support the allegations that the SIT's conclusion was influenced by the political dispensation. The fact that the SIT could not complete the investigation within six months was not a valid ground to extend the benefit of bail to the applicants.

Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh allegedly imitated himself as Guru Gobind Singh Ji during a congregation at Salabatpura on 13/05/2007, leading to growing animosity between Sikh Sangat and Dera followers.

2012. b) An FIR no.262 under Section 295-A IPC was registered against the Dera head, but the State Government presented a cancellation report in the trial court on 25/01/2012. However, on 16/10/2015, Sri Akat Takht Sahib took back the Maafinama granted to Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, in the wake of indiscriminate firing against protestors at Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan.
2013. c) The tension between local Sikh leaders and Dera Premis in village Burj Jawahar Singh Wala increased after some Dera Sacha Sauda followers removed lockets of their Dera head during a religious congregation.
2014. d) The theft of Sri Guru Granth Sahib on 01/06/2015 from the Gurudwara Sahib in village Burj Jawahar Singh Wala led to the registration of an FIR no.63 under Sections 295-A & 380 IPC.
2015. e) The second sacrilege incident occurred on 24-25/09/2015 when two posters containing sacrilegious contents were found pasted on the gates of Gurudwara Sahib located in village Burj Jawahar Singh Wala and at another Gurudwara Sahib situated at village Bargari, leading to another FIR no.117 under Section 295-A IPC.
2016. f) The third sacrilege incident occurred on 12/10/2015 when some torn pages of Sri Guru Granth Sahib were found in a street opposite a Gurudwara Sahib at Bargari, leading to the registration of a third successive FIR no.128 under Section 295-A and 120-B IPC.
2017. g) The District Magistrate, Faridkot promulgated an order under Section 144 CrPC in District Faridkot barring mass gatherings or protests due to widespread protests by Sikh Sangat against these acts of sacrilege.
2018. h) The third incident of sacrilege on 12/10/2015 led to mass protests at Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan from 12/10/2015 to 14/10/2015, despite the order passed by the District Magistrate prohibiting any such protests and gatherings.
2019. i) The protest at Kotkapura affected public transport, and when talks with protestors did not yield any result, police force from neighboring districts was summoned.
2020. j) On 14/10/2015, the police force took charge, causing provocation to the protestors, leading to a clash between the protestors and the police, during which several protestors and police personnel were injured, and one protestor received a firearm injury from an AK-47 rifle.
2021. k) On the night of 14/10/2015, the local police registered a case against several protestors bearing FIR no.192 under various sections of IPC, Arms Act, and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
2022. l) News of the clash between the protestors and the police led to large-scale road blockades and protests against the government in other parts of Punjab.

A Special Investigation Team was constituted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court to reinvestigate FIR no. 129 of 07/10/2018 after quashing of previous investigation and final police report prepared by a member of the previous SIT. The SIT found instances of police brutality on a peaceful mass gathering in the early morning of 14.10.2015 at Kotkapura, where people gathered in protest to a series of incidents of sacrilege of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The police administration had a pre-determined agenda to suppress the protest by all means by resorting to commission of various illegalities. The applicants, including the then Chief Minister of Punjab and the then Home Minister of Punjab, have approached the court seeking anticipatory bail in FIR no. 129 of 07/08/2018, which is registered with PS City Kotkapura under several sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.

Addl. Session Judge observed that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, and the proper test to be applied in granting bail is whether it is probable that the accused will appear to take their trial.

Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, and the grant of bail is the rule, while refusal is the exception.

An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after their case and to properly defend themselves than if they were in custody.

In dealing with anticipatory bail, factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice or repeat similar or other offences, and the impact of grant of anticipatory bail must be taken into consideration.

The court must evaluate the entire available material against the accused carefully and comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case.

While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between no prejudice being caused to the free, fair and full investigation and prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.

The court must also consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness of apprehension of threat to the complainant.

Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered, and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail.

The seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment imposed by the statute are determining factors in granting bail.

The court observed that the Special Investigation Team had collected prima facie evidence suggesting that there was a clandestine conspiracy by the applicants to give free hands and tactical support to police officers in unleashing brutality on peaceful protestors. The court found that the motivation of the applicants was to conceal the inaction of the state to investigate sacrilege incidents.

The court held that due to the gravity of the offense, the applicants were not entitled to anticipatory bail. However, given the advanced age and medical condition of applicant no.1, Parkash Singh Badal, the court extended the benefit of bail to him. The court also found no evidence to support the allegations that the SIT's conclusion was influenced by the political dispensation. The fact that the SIT could not complete the investigation within six months was not a valid ground to extend the benefit of bail to the applicants.

Parkash Singh Badal Etc. vs state