AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J
Crl M No. 332/2020
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to lockdown in the city because of Corona-virus, he had not been able to get the court fees to be annexed on the petition. He seeks some time to do the needful after the court re-opens.
The application is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to submit the Court fees in the Registry in terms of Circular No. 16/GS dated 29.03.2020 issued by the High Court.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
Bail App No. 53/2020
The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed in FIR No. 14 of 2020 which has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 354-D, 509-B, 506 of IPC read with Sections 66-E and 67 of IT Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that only section 509-B IPC is non bailable. He further submitted that Section 509-B is an amendment, which has been made only for the State of Chhattisgarh. The same is not there in the main IPC which is applicable in the Union Territory of J&K. If the aforesaid offence is deleted, all other offences are bailable.
Mr. B. A. Dar, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the respondents submitted that inadvertently in the FIR, Section 509-B was mentioned. The error was corrected later on and the offence now mentioned in the FIR is under section 509 IPC. He further submitted that the present petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable as the offences under which FIR has been registered against the petitioner, are bailable.
In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondents, in my opinion, once all the offences for which the petitioner has been booked in the FIR in question are bailable, the application for anticipatory bail will not be maintainable.
The petitioner may avail of his appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the purpose.
The present bail application is, accordingly, disposed of.