The Supreme Court Tuesday refused to interfere with an FIR lodged against former Punjab DGP Sumedh Singh Saini in the 1991 disappearance and murder of junior engineer Balwant Singh Multani during the heights of militancy in the state. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR registered in 2020. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Pankaj Mithal refused to interfere with the HC decision in view of the fact that a chargesheet had also been filed in the case. The court said that Saini can challenge the trial court proceedings before the appropriate forum. The top court added that observations and findings recorded in the HC verdict dated September 8, 2020, will not come in the way of proceedings before the trial court. Appearing for the retired officer, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that the case was politically motivated, having been lodged after a period of almost 29 years from the date of the alleged incident. He said that time and again the top court had granted relief to Saini, who is a decorated officer, and even protected him from any coercive action in the case. The bench, however, said it cannot go into the question of quashing at this stage as the charge sheet has been filed. The Supreme Court on January 5, 2021, had asked the Punjab government to place on record the charge sheet filed in the FIR lodged against Saini in the Multani disappearance and murder case. The top court had already granted anticipatory bail to Saini in the case lodged in the 1991. On December 3, 2020 the top court had granted anticipatory bail to Saini in the fresh case lodged in the 1991 incident. It had set aside an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court declining him the pre-arrest bail in the 33-year-old case. “.considering the fact that the impugned FIR has been lodged/filed by the brother of the deceased after a period of almost 29 years from the date of incident and after a period of nine years from the date of decision of this Court in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar.and nothing is on record that in between he had taken any steps to initiate criminal proceedings and/or lodged an FIR, we are of the opinion that at least a case is made out by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C”, the SC had said while granting Saini relief. It had added that many a time, delay may not be fatal to the criminal proceedings. “However, it always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.at the same time, a long delay like 29 years as in the present case can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail,” it had said. Opposing Saini's prayer for anticipatory bail, it was submitted that Multani’s brother had initiated the proceedings relying on the liberty granted by the court to their father in the 2011 Bhullar case - Bhullar was sentenced to death over the assassination attempt on the then All India Youth Congress President M S Bitta - “to take recourse to further proceedings if permissible in law”. But the court noted that though the father was given liberty, he did not initiate any fresh proceedings till the time of his death in 2014. The case relates to the disappearance of a Multani in 1991 when Punjab was facing the problem of Khalistani terrorism. At the time Multani was working as a junior engineer with the Chandigarh Industrial and Tourism Corporation. Multani, a resident of Mohali, was picked up by police after a terrorist attack on Saini, who was then the senior superintendent of police in Chandigarh, in 1991. While the police said he had escaped from custody, the family disputed this. It was alleged that Multani was illegally abducted from his residence at Mohali by a team of officials operating under the instructions of Saini and tortured while in custody. “It is further alleged that a false and fabricated FIR.might have been registered at the instance of the appellant to suggest that the victim was brought to the police station Qadian from where the victim was alleged to have escaped”. Multani's brother lodged the FIR in May 2020 in which Saini was given anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali. Subsequently charge under section 302 was also added to the FIR on the basis of statements of two accused who had turned approvers. Saini again sought anticipatory bail which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge and subsequently by the Punjab and Haryana High Court following which he approached the SC.
