However, as stated earlier, the I.R. was lodged on 10th of June 1977 and investigation proceeded in which statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Cr.
It is in the above background that the Delhi Administration moved the High Court for cancellation of the bail granted by the Sessions Judge alleging that there was grave apprehension of the witnesses thing tampered with by the accused persons on account of their position and influence which they wielded over the witnesses.
457 of 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 9 1977 in the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc.
P.C. in favour of the prosecution.
456 of 1977 and Criminal Appeal No.
The witnesses were also forwarded to the Magistrate for recording their statements under Section 164, Cr.
During the companyrse of the investigation, seven witnesses including six persons already examined during the preliminary inquiry, gave statements implicating the appellants in support of the theory of prosecution.
456 of 1977.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19th of September 1977 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc.
The appellants were arrested in companynection with the above case between June 10, 1977 and July 12, 1977 and the Magistrate declined to release them on bail.
A.456/77.
On the allegations, this is principally a case of criminal companyspiracy to murder a person in police custody be he a bandit.
The police personnel from the Deputy Inspector General of Police to police Constables are said to be involved as accused.
The report at that stage did number disclose names of accused persons and referred to the involvement of some Delhi Police Per sonnel.
Those eye witnessess were all police personnel.
N. Mulla, D. C. Mathur, S. K. Gambhir, Miss B. Ram krithiani and Miss Manju Jathey for the Appellants in Cr.
Fifty three witnesses were examined in that inquiry and six of them were said to be eye witnesses.
P.C. The appellants were also arrested and suspended during the period between 10th of June 1977 and 12th of July 1977.
I am of the companysidered view that the Learned Sessions Judge did number exercise his judicial discretion on relevant well recognised principles and factors which ought to have been companysidered by him.
cancelling the orders of bail of each of the appellants passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Delhi.
Sunder was said to be a numberorious dacoit who was wanted in several cases of murder and dacoity alleged to have been companymitted by him in Delhi and elsewhere.
On September 19, 1977 the High Court set aside the orders of the Sessions Judge dated 1 8 1977 and 11 8 1977 and the bail bonds furnished by the appellants were cancelled and they were ordered to be taken into custody forthwith.
Charge sheet was submitted on 9th August 1977 against 13 accused including all the appellants under Section 120 B read with Section 302, I.P.C. and under other Sections.
The 13th accused who was also a policeman has been evading arrest.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Hence these appeals by Special Leave which were argued together and will be disposed of by this judgment.
P.C. against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the bail.
Before the F.I.R. was lodged on 10th June 1977, there had been a preliminary inquiry companyducted by the C.B.I. between 6th of April 1977 and 9th of June 1977 bearing upon the death of Sunder.
A. 457/77.
According to the prosecution, the alleged murder took place on the night of 24th of November 1976.
Mokerjee, D. C. Mathur, S. K. Gambhir, Miss B. Ram krikhiani, Miss Manju Jehey for the Appellants in Crl.
It is stated that by May, 1976, Sunder became a security risk for Mr. Sanjay Gandhi.
474 of 1977.
In order to appreciate the submissions, on behalf of the appellants, of Mr. Mulla followed by Mr. Mukherjee it will be appropriate to briefly advert to certain relevant facts.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI, J. These two appeals by Special Leave are directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court.
They were all arrested in pursuance of the First Information Report lodged by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on 10 6 77 in what is number described as the Sunder Murder Case.
of Police , P. S. Bhinder D.I.G. of Police , Amarjit Singh Inspector and Constable Paras Ram on 1st August 1977 and of the eight other police personnel on 11th August 1977.
It appears Sunder was arrested at Jaipur on 31 8 1976 and was in police custody in Delhi between 2nd of November 1976 and 26th of November 1976 under the orders of the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Shahdara, Delhi, It is alleged that the appellants ranging from the Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police at the top down to some police companystables were a party to a criminal companyspiracy to kill Sunder and caused his death by drowning him in the Yamuna in pursuance of the companyspiracy.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Addl, Solicitor General and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent in both the appeals.
Thereafter, they approached the learned Sessions Judge under Section 439 2 , Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 briefly the new Code and secured release on bail of the four appellants, namely, Gurcharan Singh Supdt.
The Delhi Administration moved the High Court under Section 439 2 , Cr.
During this preliminary inquiry, all the six alleged eye witnesses did number support the prosecution case, but gave statements ill favour of the accused.
The seventh eye witness A.S.I. Gopal Das, who had number been examined earlier, made statements under Section 164, Cr.
P.C. All the seven witnesses, it is stated, companytinued to support the prosecution case in their statements on oath recorded under Section 164, Cr.
P.C. Six eye witnesses who made such discrepant statements and had supported the defence version at one stage, explained that some the accused, namely, D.S.P. R. K. Sharma and Inspector Harkesh had exercised pressure on them to make such statements in favour of the defence.
The learned Sessions Judge ended his long discussion as follows To sum up, after reviewing the entire material including the inquest proceedings held by the Sub Divisional Magistrate statements recorded by the CBI during the preliminary enquiry and under section 161, Cr.
