Kanwar Mohinder Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the complainant.

The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order passed in Criminal Misc. No. 8035-M of 1997. The order of anticipatory bail was to last after a period of 90 days from the date of order i.e. 29.4.1997. As the said period of 90 days is over, this fresh petition for anticipatory bail has been filed.

The petitioner admittedly is not arrested. However, the original complainant had given Crl. Misc. Application No. 17055/1997 for submitting her objections and that Crl. Misc. application was allowed.

Mr. Rajput appearing for the complainant argued that once the period of anticipatory bail is over, no subsequent application for anticipatory bail can be filed and that the petitioner could have asked for extension of the order in main application by filing Criminal Misc. application in the main petition. This argument cannot be accepted, not only that it is technical but it is not shown to me that there can be any bar in granting such an application.

The second argument advanced by Mr. Rajput was that the petitioner is misusing the concession of anticipatory bail. He has drawn my attention to the order of learned Sessions Judge, Ambala dated 8.4.1997 vide which he had declined anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that after the order of the learned Sessions Judge, this Court had allowed anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Mr. Rajput further argued that after the rejection of the bail application, the petitioner and his friends harassed the complainant. He has read over to me Annexure P/2 which is a copy of the DDR No. 25 dated 12.4.1997. In the said DDR, it is stated that after the rejection of the bail application by the Ambala District Court on 9.4.1997, the petitioner and his friends in Maruti car started chasing the complainant and followed her to her house which has caused her grave harassment. It is further stated in the said DDR that the petitioner treated her in abusive language and asked that if she did not withdraw the suit filed against him, she will meet with dire consequence and she is under mental trauma and also seeks police protection for her mental and physical well being. Unfortunately, the application is silent as to when the accident took place and where the occurrence took place. It is so vague that no weight can be attached to it at present.

The third objection raised by Mr. Rajput is that articles are still to be recovered and if the anticipatory bail is granted, the prosecution shall not be able to recover the same. It is not shown as to how by granting of anticipatory bail the petitioner has not been able to recover the articles. The anticipatory bail which was granted was with conditions and the conditions were more than sufficient for taking care of the interest of the prosecution/investigation and in view of the conditions mentioned in the said order, this objection cannot be accepted.

Considering the nature of the complaint against the petitioner, I find that anticipatory bail can be granted. Therefore, I find no reason to decline the said prayer and as anticipatory bail is already granted, the question is only of extension of the period of anticipatory bail order.

As a result, this petition is allowed. The order of anticipatory bail passed in Crl. Misc.No. 8035-M of 1997 is extended for a further period of 90 days from today with the same terms and conditions.