Jaimal Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This is an application for anticipatory bail by the petitioners apprehending arrest in connection with criminal case No. 88/1 of 16.9.1985/49/1 of 23.12.1985, for the offence under Sections 342/364/120B/149 of the IPC pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, titled as Surinder Kaur v. Dilbag Singh and others.

This Court on 22.2.1996 while issuing notice to A.G. Punjab had also ordered that in the meanwhile, the petitioners would appear before the trial Court on 28.2.1996. i.e. the date fixed in the case and on their appearance, they shall be admitted to bail. Thereafter, the petitioners presented themselves before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, moved an application for bail. They have also produced a copy of the order dated 22.2.1996, passed by this court and accordingly the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ with one surety for the like amount, each.

Subsequent to the grant of bail by the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners'' Advocate conceded in this Court that this petition has become infructuous because regular bail was given by the learned Additional District Judge and this petition was dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioners thereafter filed a criminal misc. application No. 17547 of 1996 and order of dismissal of the petition as having become infructuous was recalled.

Thereafter, I heard learned Advocate Shri Surjewala for the petitioners, Shri Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the original complainant, and Mr. Gill, the learned A.A.G. Punjab.

Mr. Navkiran Singh has vehemently objected to the granting of this anticipatory bail application. The question to be decided now is whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners or not. The learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that when the complaint was filed, the present petitioners were summoned only for the offences under Sections 342 and 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC and there was another accused who was summoned for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. However, it is an admitted fact that the after the charge having been framed, there is another under Section 302 of the IPC. against the present petitioners also.

Apart from this, this is a case of 1984. The learned Advocate for the complainant, Mr. Navkiran Singh, has argued that because the petitioners did not remain present, the case was delayed for long time and ultimately they have to be declared Proclaimed Offenders before their presence could be secured. It is a matter of regret that the persons serving in the Police Department cannot be served with notice/summons in a case and that they are declared as Proclaimed Offenders. It has been contended that one of the petitioners have retired from service. However, that does not help the petitioners because it is not shown as to when he is retired and even the petitioner who has not retired could not be served. If a Police Officer who attends his duties and can be available at a particular address, cannot be served then who else can be served with notice/summons in a case ? The granting of anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and it is a discretion of a Court as to whether anticipatory bail should be granted or not. The fact that the petitioners could not be served for such a long time tilts the balance against the petitioners in dealing with the question of granting anticipatory bail. The petitioners who served in the Police Department can certainly be instrumental in evading the service of summons and thwarting the process of the Court. This is a natural inference which can be drawn in view of the fact that the petitioners who were in Police Department could not be served with summons. Even if a petitioner has retired, it would not have been difficult to locate him after his retirement.

The learned Advocate, Shri Surjewala has argued that on merits of the case, the petitioners cannot be said to be involved in an incident by which Section 302 of the IPC can be invoked against them. This is a matter which need not be considered while dealing with the question of granting anticipatory bail.

Because of the above reasons, I do not find it proper to grant this anticipatory bail application. The petitioners were granted bail by the learned Additional District Judge obviously because of the interim order of this Court made in this petition. While dismissing this anticipatory bail application, I do not comment on the rights of the petitioners to obtain regular bail and if such request is made by them before the learned Sessions Judge/Additional District Judge, it shall be decided on its own merits.

In view of the above reasons, this application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.