SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Indraj Singh vs Uoi & Ors on 31 May, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6477 / 2018
Indraj Singh S/o Balbir Singh, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village
Khudu Ka Baas, Post Khudu, Via Mandawa, P.S. Mandawa, Dist.-
Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Bikaner)

—-Petitioner
Versus

1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.

2. Director General, BSF HQ, Block No. 10, CGO Complex, Lodhi
Road, New Delhi, Delhi 110003

3. Inspector General, Frontier HQ BSF, Mandore Road, Jodhpur

4. Dy Inspector General, SQF BSF Bikaner.

—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar S/o. petitioner
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sahil Sharma, DC (Law), BSF
Officer Incharge
__
HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
31/05/2018

1. The lawyers are not working due to abstention from

work.

2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the

following reliefs :-

(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated
15.02.2018 passed by the respondent authority may be quashed
and set aside.

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent
Authorities may be directed to remand back the petitioner on his
duty.

(2 of 5)
[CW-6477/2018]

(c) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon`ble
Court deems just and proper in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the
petitioner.

(d) Costs of the writ petition may kindly awarded to the
petitioner.”

3. The facts as noticed by this Court are that

No.838660127 Ex-Head Constable Indraj Singh of SHQ BSF,

Bikaner was tried by General Security Force Court (GSFC) vide

order dated 15.2.2018 (Annex.2) for offence under Sections 40

and 46 of BSF Act, 1968 for an act prejudicial to good order and

discipline of Force and for using criminal force to a woman

intending to outrage her modesty punishable under Section 354

IPC. The petitioner was found guilty in GSFC trial proceedings,

which culminated into conviction of the petitioner with punishment

of dismissal from service and one year’s rigorous imprisonment.

The petitioner preferred a statutory petition against GSFC order,

which has been dismissed by the competent authority i.e. the

Director General, BSF on 25.5.2018.

4. Mr. Sahil Sharma, Deputy Commandant (Law), BSF,

Officer Incharge of case is present in Court and has shown order

dated 25.5.2018, concluding portion whereof reads as follows :

“That, during his 28 years of unblemished service, he has
earned 27 rewards. He has completed all the tasks assigned to
him with full responsibility which was not taken into
consideration and he has been punished. He is having
marriageable son and daughter and the responsibility to look
after his brother’s family also.

(3 of 5)
[CW-6477/2018]

The perusal of GSFC trial proceedings reveals that before
deciding the quantum of punishment, the Court has on record the
previous convictions, character and rewards etc., of petitioner
(Exhibit-‘V’) through a witness. The offence U/s.46 of the BSF
Act of which he is convicted carries punishment upto 07 years
imprisonment. However, keeping in view the past record of the
petitioner, facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has
taken a lenient view and awarded punishment of 01 year of
rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service only which is
lesser than the maximum punishment awarded to the petitioner is
very much commensurate with the gravity of the offence
committed by him. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner
is without any substance.

4. As far as the service profile is concerned, as on 29.11.2017,
the date of conviction, the petitioner was 48 years and 15 days
old with 24 years, 10 months 09 days service in BSF. In past,
he has been punished summarily once U/s.26 for intoxication
and awarded 14 days RI on 25.11.2005. He has earned 27
rewards (IG-01, DIG-14 Comdt-12).

5. In view of forgoing and after careful consideration of all the
facts and circumstances of the case, DG BSF has rejected the
petition submitted by the petitioner being devoid of merit.

5. Mr. Arvind Kumar Chahar (son of the petitioner) is

present in Court as the petitioner is languishing in Central Jail,

Bikaner and sought suspension of his father’s (petitioner)

sentence as he is in custody since 29.11.2017.

6. The Officer Incharge vehemently opposed the relief

claimed by the petitioner regarding suspension of sentence by

making submission that its a disciplined Force and any kind of

leniency towards offenders, specially, convicted under the charge

of moral turpitude has to be viewed seriously. He further
(4 of 5)
[CW-6477/2018]

contended that if such offender is set free, morale of ladies

working in BSF will be adversely affected and there will be a

major set-back to the drive in the ongoing recruitment process

encouraging women to join BSF.

7. This Court has heard both the petitioner’s son and the

Officer Incharge. However, while making limited adjudication on

the issue of suspension of sentence of one year’s rigorous

imprisonment awarded by Dy. IG, SHO, BSF, Bikaner vide

order dated 15.2.2018 (Annex.2), this Court finds that the

petitioner is a 48 years old man and has put in 24 years, 10

months and 09 days service in BSF. This Court has also noted

that the petitioner earned 27 rewards in his service and once

was punished for intoxication on 25.11.2005. Thus, without

making any observation on merits of case, while admitting this

petition for final hearing, this Court allows the stay petition.

8. The petitioner who is in custody of BSF since

29.11.2017 and then has been sent to Central Jail, Bikaner from

15.2.2018 shall be released from jail concerned forthwith

provided he executes two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/-

each and a personal-bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the

satisfaction of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner.

9. This order shall be complied forthwith by the

respondents as well as the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bikaner

after completion of necessary formalities. It is made clear that

this order on suspension of sentence shall not prejudice case on

merits on either side.

(5 of 5)
[CW-6477/2018]

10. While disposing of stay petition, the order dated

25.5.2018 passed in statutory petition is served on petitioner’s

son in Court by the Dy. Commandant (Law), BSF and a copy of

order dated 25.5.2018 passed in that petition has been taken on

record.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

Sanjay

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation