"Evading Arrest for 30 Years Doesn't Weaken the Evidence": High Court Rejects Bail Plea in 1991 Militant Encounter Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court, on July 29, 2024, dismissed the bail plea of Paramjit Singh alias Pamma, who has been evading arrest for over 30 years in connection with a deadly police encounter in 1991. The court, presided over by Justice Anoop Chitkara, emphasized the compelling evidence linking Singh to the incident, which involved a shootout with police and the death of an officer. Despite the passage of time, the court found no basis to grant bail, urging the accused to surrender and pursue regular bail through appropriate legal channels.

The case dates back to May 21, 1991, when a police party, acting on a tip-off about the presence of militants at the dera (farmhouse) of Jagdish Singh, engaged in a fierce encounter with armed terrorists. The incident resulted in the death of a police officer, Head Constable Yashpal Singh, and injuries to another officer, ASI Pritam Singh. Jagdish Singh, the brother of the petitioner, was also killed during the encounter. However, the petitioner, Paramjit Singh, allegedly fled the scene and was subsequently declared a proclaimed offender.

The prosecution alleges that Paramjit Singh, along with his brother and other accomplices, was actively involved in the encounter, during which they fired upon the police with the intent to kill. The petitioner, however, claims that his brother was tortured and killed by the police, and that he has been falsely implicated in the case as a terrorist.

The court, in its detailed judgment, noted the presence of substantial evidence implicating Paramjit Singh in the encounter. This included witness statements and the recovery of arms and ammunition from the scene. The court pointed out that the petitioner's prolonged evasion of arrest does not weaken the evidence against him. Justice Chitkara stated, "Simply because the petitioner could not be nabbed for 30 years is not a ground for granting bail."

The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate A.P.S. Deol, argued that Singh was falsely implicated after escaping a police-led extrajudicial killing of his family members. Deol highlighted an inquiry report by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) that supported claims of police brutality and wrongful killing of Jagdish Singh and other family members. Despite this, the court remained unconvinced, emphasizing the petitioner’s failure to surrender and face the legal process over the years.

The court underscored that granting bail in a case of such gravity, especially involving allegations of terrorism and the death of a police officer, would be inappropriate given the weight of evidence. The judge remarked, "There is sufficient evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offense, and he is not entitled to bail at this stage."

In dismissing the petition, the High Court directed Paramjit Singh to surrender before the Sessions Court on August 7, 2024, by 11 AM, with the liberty to file a fresh bail application based on additional grounds. The judgment, which also vacated interim bail granted earlier, highlights the judiciary's firm stance on cases involving serious offenses, even when significant time has passed since the alleged crime.

Date of Decision: July 29, 2024