Sidhu Moosewala Murder case: Pritpal Singh got bail.

Brief Facts of the Case.

Dismissed Cop Pritpal Singh is alleged to have assisted gangster Deepak Tinu in escaping police custody got interim bail from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 

Deepak tinu one of the accused of Murder case of Sidhu Moosewala is suspected of aiding in the arrangement of sharpshooters for the Sidhu Murder case. During his custody under the CIA, it's claimed that Deepak absconded with the assistance of the then CIA Sub-Inspector, Pritpal Singh. 

Pritpal Singh was thus booked under Sections 222, 224, 225-A, 212, 216, 120-B of IPC and Sections 25, 54, 59 of Arms Act at District Mansa in Oct 2022 and been in custody since then.

Explanation of sections on Pritpal Singh

Section 222: Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of the public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed - — Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person under sentence of a Court of Justice for any offence or lawfully committed to custody, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished as follows, that is to say:

With imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, is under sentence of death; or

With imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who, ought to have been apprehended, is subject, by a sentence of a Court of Justice, or by virtue of a commutation of such sentence, to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or upwards; or

With imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended is subject, by a sentence of a Court of Justice, to imprisonment for a term not extending to ten years or if the person was lawfully committed to custody.

Section 224: Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension 

This section applies when any person causes resistance or unlawful obstruction against his own lawful apprehension.

Ingredients - This section deals with two kinds of offences -

1. Resistance or illegal obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension for any offence with which he is charged.
2. Escape or attempt to escape by a person from lawful custody for the offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted.

In order to commit an offence under this section one should escape from the custody in which he has been detained legally. No person is under legal custody unless he has been arrested. A suspect of crime who was brought to the Police Station for interrogation ran away from the place without the permission of the police. It was held that he was not under lawful custody.

In Vighari Kala Bhiksha v. State of Gujarat, an arrested person accused escaped causing knife injuries to the head constable. He was held guilty of offence under Section 24 whereas his friends who pelted stones at the police party were convicted under Section 225 of IPC.

Section 225-A: Omission to apprehend, or sufferance of escape, on part of public servant, in cases not otherwise provided for -

A public servant who is bound to apprehend or to confine any person and who intentionally or negligently omits to apprehend that person is to be punished under this section. The section provides for such punishments which are not within the purview of section 221, 222 or 223.

Section 212: Harbouring offender 

For conviction under this section, some offence must have actually been committed and the harbourer must give refuge to one whom he knows re has reason to believe to be the offender with the intention of screening him from legal punishment. This section has no application where the persons harboured are criminals but they have absconded merely to avoid or delay a judicial investigation.

Exception - The only exception contemplated under this section is in those cases where harbour is afforded by a wife or husband. The other relationships are beyond the scope of the exception. As such, the willful receipt or assistance of felons is not an excuse; a father cannot assist his child, a child his parent, a brother his brother, a master his servant or a servant his master.

It must, however, be stated that harbouring a prisoner of war who had escaped from confinement is an offence under Section 130, IPC and harbouring a deserter from Army, Navy or Air Force is an offence under Section 136 of IPC and therefore, Sec 212 shall have no application in these cases.

Section 216: Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered -

It was held by the privy council in case of Easwaramurthie, that to establish an offence under this section the following must be shown:

1. That there has been an order for the apprehension of a certain person as being guilty of an offence;
2. Knowledge by the accused party of that order, and the harbouring or concealing by the accused of the person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended. 

On a comparison of this section with section 212, it is apparent that this section deals with harouring of an offender who has escaped from custody after being actually convicted or charged with the offence, or whose apprehension has been ordered. Section 212 deals with the offence of harbouring an offender who having committed an offence absconds. Thus the offence, contemplated under this section is aggravated form of the offence punishable under section 212.

Section 120-B: Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy - 

Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

Provision of Interim Bail 

Before the hearing for the grant of regular or anticipatory bail, a short-term bail is given to the accused. Such short-term bail is called ‘interim bail’. In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi (2001), the deceased, the accused’s wife, is said to have been abused as a consequence of the demand for dowry. On 18.3.1999, the accused is said to have taken the deceased to his parent’s home where, in front of his parents, he poured kerosene on her and set her afire. According to Section 438 of the CrPC, the accused petitioned for the grant of anticipatory bail. The investigative agency did not make a genuine effort to resist the bail application, thus the Sessions Judge granted interim bail. However, the Sessions Judge noted that the State shall be free to arrest the accused if a case under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (1860) is made out on the facts while rejecting a motion for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.