Beant Singh vs State of Punjab

K.K. Srivastava, J.

Issue notice to A.G., Punjab.

Shri S.S. Randhawa, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition for bail is being taken up today itself for final disposal.

Undisputedly, the petitioner had approached earlier the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail, who declined the same and then he approached this Court along with four other coaccused. The bail was declined by this Court also by order dated 21.3.1997 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5093M/1997 (copy of which is Annexure P1). The four coaccused, namely, Sandhya Kumra, Dimple Kumra, Mohinder Pal Kumra and Narinder Chatley filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court (being S.L.P. No. 1120 of 1997), in which a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (No. 2301 of 1997) for grant of anticipatory bail was moved. The Apex Court by order dated 7.4.1997 stayed the arrest of the four coaccused aforesaid (copy Annexure P2). Later on, the Supreme Court granted bail to the aforesaid four coaccused by order dated 22.9.1997 (copy Annexure P3), which reads as under :

"Leave granted.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts we set aside the impugned order and direct for bail to all the accused. Let the bail bonds be furnished to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.

Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

New Delhi,

Sd/ J (G.N. Ray)

September 22, 1997,

Sd/ J (G.B. Pattanaik)"

Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court for anticipatory bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 22077M/1997, which was disposed of by order dated 7.10.1997, which has been quoted in para 2 of the petition and is reproduced as under :

"The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the bail of the accused by order dated 5.3.1997. The counsel for the petitioner brought my attention to the order passed by the Supreme Court on 22.9.1997, by which bail was granted to some of the accused involved in this case. It, therefore, appears that in the set of changed circumstances, the petitioner, if advised, may file another bail application in the trial court. In that event, the trial court would consider that application on facts and the development that have taken place since dismissal of the bail application earlier. With these observations, petition disposed off.

Dasti on payment.

Sd/ S.C. Malte,

Judge"

In pursuance of the direction contained in order dated 7.10.1997 of this Court, the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail by moving a fresh application, which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, who has declined the same and that is how the petitioner has now again approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner for anticipatory bail deserves to be allowed as the coaccused, similarly placed, or whose cases were even more grievous than the petitioner, have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the Apex Court. It is also urged that Narinder Chatley, who was also an attesting witness of the disputed deed of agreement, has since been granted bail and the case of the petitioner is at par with the said coaccused/Narinder Chatley.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to be given the concession of anticipatory bail, on parity of the coaccused, named above. Resultantly, this petition is allowed subject to the following conditions :

(1) In the event of the petitioner being arrested in case FIR No. 237 dated 20.11.1996, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471 and 120B IPC, Police Station, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

(2) During the period of anticipatory bail, the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution;

(3) The petitioner during the period of anticipatory bail shall not leave the country without obtaining prior permission of the court of Magistrate of competent jurisdiction and

(4) The petitioner shall associate himself with the investigation of the case and join the investigation, as and when required to do so.

This order shall remain in force till the trial Court takes cognizance of the matter and summons the petitioner for trial.