Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 13 docs - [View All]
The Arms Act, 1959
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 27 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 25 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860

User Queries
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Singh And Ors. vs State Of Punjab on 7 September, 1984
Equivalent citations: 1985 CriLJ 1604
Author: J Tandon
Bench: J Tandon

ORDER

J.M. Tandon, J.

1. The police registered FIR No. 83 dt. July 13th 1954, at Police Station, Bhogpur under Sections 440/148/149/380, I.P.C. at the instance of Dara Singh son of Mala Singh regarding the occurrence which allegedly took place during the night intervening July 9 and 10, 1984. The petitioners are the accused persons. It came to the notice of the police during investigation that the accused had also used fire arms. The police desired to arrest the petitioners under Sections 440/148/149/380, I.P.C. and Section 25/27 of the Indian Arms Act read with Section 306, I.P.C. The petitioners and Dr. Sohan Singh applied to the Sessions Judge, Jullundur, for anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dt. July 26,1984, allowed anticipatory bail to Dr. Sohan Singh but declined the similar relief to the petitioners. The petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail in the present petition.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The alleged occurrence took place during the night intervening July 9 and 10,1984. The occurrence was reported to the police on July 10, 1984, The police recorded the daily diary report and did not register a case on that date. The statements of P. W. Dara Singh and others were recorded on July 10 and 11, 1984 and F.I.R. under Sections 440/148/149 and 380, I.P.C. was registered on July 13,1984. The argument proceeds that if it had come to the notice of the police from the statements of the P.Ws. recorded on July 10 and 11, 1984, that fire arms had been used by the petitioners then the case would also have been registered under the Arms Act. The fact that the police, after recording the statements of the P.Ws. on July 10 and 11, 1984, registered a case against the petitioners under Sections 440/148/149 and 380, I.P.C. is suggestive that it had not come to the notice of the police till July 13,1984, that fire arms had been used by the petitioners and the police has thought of arresting the petitioners under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act as well and Section 506, I.P.C. because Section 438, Cr. P.C. has been made inapplicable in relation to these offences under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the petitioners cannot be arrested under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act unless a separate case is registered against them for this offence and the police has not registered such a case against the petitioners.

3. Mr. D. S. Brar, A. A. G. Punjab has contended that it is incorrect that the police has made any fabrication after July 13, 1984. The police, of course, did not register a case under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act against the petitioners on July 13, 1984. The occurrence on the basis of which F.I.R. No. 83 dt. July 13, 1984, has been registered, and in which the tire arms were used by the accused party constitute one unit. The police is competent to arrest the petitioners under the Arms Act irrespective of the fact that these sections are not specifically mentioned in FIR No. 83. The facts of the case do not warrant allowing of anticipatory bail to the petitioners especially in view of the provisions of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, under which Section 438, Cr. P.C. has been made inapplicable in relation to Section 25/27 of the Arms Act.

4. The occurrence which allegedly took place during the night intervening July 9 and 10, 1984, and in which fire arms are stated to have been used constitute one composite unit. F.I.R. 83 registered on July 13,1984, relates to this occurrence. The mention of specific offences in the F.I.R. or the omission thereof is hardly relevant material. It is, therefore, open to the police to arrest the accused in this case under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act irrespective of the fact that these two sections were not specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. Section 438, Cr. P.C. is inapplicable in relation to offence under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 506, I.P.C. Under these circumstances, it is futile to allow anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Sections 440/148/149/380, I.P.C. as well.

5. In view of discussion above, the petition fails and is dismissed.