On August 4, a Special MP/MLA Court in Delhi granted pre-arrest bail to Congress leader Jagdish Tytler in a case concerning the ‘1984 anti-Sikh Riots.’ The court noted that the accused has “no chance” of absconding as he has “deep roots” in society. The court also noted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not recommend any action against the accused in their first supplementary report dated March 27, 2009, and second supplementary report dated December 24, 2014.
“In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the fact that applicant/accused Jagdish Tytler was chargesheeted without arrest by CBI and was not chargesheeted earlier either by Delhi Police and the CBI, to the fact that CBI had not recommended any action against applicant/accused Jagdish Tytler in first supplementary report dated 27.03.2009 and second supplementary final report dated 24.12.2014 and having regard to the fact that two eye witnesses have made their statements after a gap of around 40 years and to the fact that applicant/accused Jagdish Tytler has co-operated in the investigation, the application filed by applicant/accused Jagdish Tytler under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed,” the Rouse Avenue Court’s Special Judge (PC Act) Vikas Dhull granted pre-arrest bail to accused Jagdish Tytler.
The court further directed the accused Congress leader that he would not attempt to threaten or intimidate any witnesses in the case or contact them in any manner whatsoever, till the conclusion of the trial.
The accused Congress leader’s counsel argued that the CBI filed a chargesheet against Jagdish Tytler after a gap of about 40 years by taking a contrary stand to their earlier closure reports favouring the accused. The counsel argued that the CBI had given a “clean chit” to the accused repeatedly before filing this chargesheet, alleging that the present case is “politically motivated.”
The accused’s counsel further attacked the credibility of the eye-witnesses against Jagdish Tytler. The counsel alleged that two eye-witnesses gave their statement to the CBI “for the first time in 40 years” even though there were numerous commissions and occasions to do so before.
The counsel argued that there were various commissions issued to inquire into the killings of Sikhs but “they (eye-witnesses) never came forward to make their statement and their statement made after a gap of 40 years does not inspire any kind of confidence and has been concocted just to falsely implicate the applicant/accused Jagdish Tytler.”
The accused’s counsel further submitted that there are no apprehensions of witnesses being influenced or tampered with as the accused has been at large and yet the witnesses have come forward to make their statement. The counsel further argued that the accused is 79 years old and is suffering from various medical ailments including Hypertensive Uncontrolled Type II Diabetes, Kidney Problems, Carcinoma Prostate and a history of heart disease.
Meanwhile, the CBI’s counsel argued that the accused Congress leader is involved in the commission of a heinous offence involving multiple murders. Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the offence, no case for a grant of anticipatory bail is made out. The counsel further argued that Jagdish Tytler is a “very influential and a powerful person” and there is every apprehension that “he might threaten, intimidate, instigate or influence the witnesses” or even abscond to avoid the trial.
The CBI’s counsel further contended that the eye-witnesses took time to muster the courage to make their statements against Jagdish Tytler as he “happens to be a very influential person.” The complainant’s counsel supported the Public Prosecutor’s submissions and opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused. The complainant’s counsel argued that “Jagdish Tytler was involved in a heinous crime, which is a crime against humanity and having regard to the gravity of crime, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.”
Background
On November 1, 1984, Jagdish Tytler allegedly instigated, incited and provoked the mob assembled at Gurudwara Pul Bangash at Azad Market, Delhi. The mob burnt down Gurudwara Pul Bangash and killed three Sikhs – Badal Singh, Sardar Thakur Singh and Gurcharan Singh – by burning. “In the said incident, two burnt dead bodies were recovered and third body was completely burnt and no remains of the same could be recovered,” the court noted.
The Delhi Police, upon completion of the investigation, filed a chargesheet against 32 persons under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); however, the Sessions Court acquitted all accused persons on April 10, 1992. Notably, Jagdish Tytler was not named as an accused in the original FIR No 316/1984 as an accused.
On May 8, 2000, the Government of India appointed Justice GT Nanavati to inquire into the killings of Sikhs. On February 9, 2005, the Justice Nanavati Commission submitted its report. Based on the Nanavati Commission’s recommendations, the Government of India directed the CBI to conduct an investigation into the cases against Jagdish Tytler and others, and accordingly, the CBI re-registered FIR No 316/1984 on November 22, 2005.
Upon completion of the investigation, the CBI filed a chargesheet against Suresh Kumar for offences under 147, 148, 149, 302, 457, 320, 436, 295 and 188 IPC. However, the CBI did not recommend any action against the Congress leader in its chargesheet. On December 18, 2007, the Karkardooma Court directed the CBI to conduct further investigation into the case, and in compliance with the court’s order, the CBI filed its first supplementary report on March 27, 2009. However, the CBI did not recommend any action against the Congress leader in its report.
However, Lakhwinder Kaur, wife of victim Badal Singh, filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court. The court ordered the CBI to conduct further investigation on April 10, 2013, and in compliance with the court’s order CBI filed a second supplementary report on December 24, 2014, recommending that the allegations against the Congress leader could not be corroborated. The court did not accept the CBI’s report dated December 24, 2014, and directed the CBI to investigate further. The CBI filed its chargesheet before the court on May 20, 2023, and charged the Congress leader for offences u/s 147, 148, 149, 153A, 188, 109 r/w 295, 302, 436 of the IPC.
On June 2, the case was assigned to ACMM-01 of Rouse Avenue District Court, which took cognisance of the supplementary chargesheet on July 26 and summoned the accused on August 5. Thus, the Congress leader moved a plea seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest if he appears before the said court on August 5.
