Kulbir Singh @ Heera vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Bindal, J.—Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 167 dated 23.7.2010, registered under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and 17/20 of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967, at Police Station, Sadar Khanna. The case for the first time came up for hearing on 29.5.2012, when it was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. It was for the reason that in paragraph 14 of the petition, statement was made by the petitioner that no such or similar petition had earlier been filed by the petitioner either in this court or Hon''ble the Supreme Court of India or Sessions Court. As the same was in contradiction to the information furnished by the Registry in terms of which the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc.-M No. 7320 of 2012, which was dismissed on 14.3.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to statement made in paragraph 10 of the petition stating that number of the petition earlier filed had been mentioned therein. The statements made in paragraphs 10 and 14 of the petition run contrary to each other. It was under these circumstances that the petition was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner to enable him to take appropriate steps. Thereafter, it was listed on 4.7.2012. As necessary correction was not made, it was again adjourned for today.

Today, Criminal Misc. Application No. 39290 of 2012 has been filed praying for deletion of paragraph 13 from the main petition. A perusal of the petition shows that paragraph 13 merely states that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed upon the petitioner while granting concession of regular bail. He undertakes to appear in court on each and every date of hearing and not to leave the jurisdiction of the court without permission. Even deletion of the aforesaid paragraph will not cure the defect in the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail application filed by an accused, who is in custody, cannot be dismissed on this technical frivolous ground as substance in the petition has to be seen. As the Registry of this Court has already furnished the information about the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner, hence mentioning or not mentioning thereof will not make any difference. In the application filed by the petitioner, substance has to be seen and not merely that paragraph number has been wrongly mentioned.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The information, which is required to be furnished in the paragraph immediately before the prayer clause, cannot be said to be irrelevant and termed to be frivolous for rejection of an application in case of failure to furnish the same in the paragraph specified. Though the petitioner has referred to the information furnished in paragraph 10 of the petition mentioning that he had earlier filed a petition in this court, which was dismissed (copy of the order annexed), however, in paragraph 14, it has been stated that no such or similar petition had been filed by the petitioner either in this court or Hon''ble the Supreme Court or Sessions Court. The statements of fact in both the paragraphs run contrary to each other. The information furnished in paragraph 10 of the petition does not fulfil the requirement of mentioning the filing of any other petition in this Court or Hon''ble the Supreme Court or the Sessions Court. The reference to the fact that the Registry has already put up a note pertaining to other petitions filed by the petitioner in this court is also not relevant for the reason that the same refers to only the petitions filed in this, court. It is meant to check the statement of fact made by an accused while approaching this court and not to absolve any accused, who approaches the court in case he mentions wrong facts regarding the earlier petition filed or dismissed by any other court. As far as mentioning of wrong paragraph number in the petition, where the prayer has been made for deletion of paragraph 13 from the petition is concerned, I do not find any merit even in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that substance of the application is to be seen and paragraph number, as mentioned in the application, should be ignored. Firstly, in the petition it is paragraph 14 where a statement has been made that no such or similar petition had earlier been filed by the petitioner either in this court or Hon''ble the Supreme Court or the Sessions Court. The statement runs contrary to the statement made in paragraph 10, where filing of the petition in this court was mentioned. Even if the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and paragraph 14 is deleted, there would be no statement regarding filing or pendency of any other petition by the petitioner either in this court or Hon''ble the Supreme Court or Sessions Court, which is the requirement while filing a petition for bail in this court.

For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed.