State Of Punjab v. Kewal Singh And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

The case arises out of an incident at about 6.45 a.m. on October 3, 1986, when five/six persons wearing police uniforms arrived in a jeep (No. PAT 471), entered the GOs Mess at Jalandhar, and attempted to take the life of Shri J.F. Ribeiro, then Director-General of Police, while he and his wife were strolling in the lawn. In the ensuing encounter, two police personnel guarding the Mess were killed, and the assailants ultimately escaped after firing shots.

Procedurally, the Designated Court at Jalandhar, by order dated March 20, 1987, granted bail to accused Kulwant Singh on the ground that no role was attributed to him and that at that stage it could not be said whether an offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was made out against him. The Designated Court rejected bail for the remaining accused. The respondents then moved the Punjab & Haryana High Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By order dated January 4, 1988, a learned Single Judge directed release of the respondent-accused on bail on the reasoning that bail had already been granted to co-accused Kulwant Singh and that the evidence collected against him was of the same type. The present matter is an appeal by special leave challenging the legality and propriety of that High Court order.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Punjab & Haryana High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the respondents' bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Whether the High Court's order dated January 4, 1988 directing release of the respondents on bail was legal and proper.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court confined itself to the "only question" involved: the legality and propriety of the High Court's order granting bail to the respondent-accused. It noted that the High Court granted bail primarily on parity, i.e., because the Designated Court had granted bail to co-accused Kulwant Singh and because the evidence collected against him was stated to be of the same type.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and expressly relied on Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat (1988) 2 SCC 271 for this conclusion. On that jurisdictional ground, the Court set aside the High Court's order releasing the respondents on bail.

The Court further clarified that the respondents were not barred from seeking bail, but that any fresh bail request should be made to the Designated Court, which must decide it in accordance with the principles laid down in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai.

Holding and Implications

LEAVE GRANTED; HIGH COURT BAIL ORDER SET ASIDE; RESPONDENTS DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FORTHWITH.

The direct consequence is that the respondents' release on bail pursuant to the High Court's order dated January 4, 1988 was undone and they were ordered to be taken into custody immediately. The Court also preserved the respondents' liberty to apply afresh for bail before the Designated Court, which is required to decide any such application in light of the principles stated in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat (1988) 2 SCC 271. The opinion applies the cited precedent to a jurisdictional question and does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond this application.