AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against orders dated 28.5.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M Nos.7964-7981 of 2013 whereby the benefit of pre-arrest bail was extended to the respondents.
We have heard Shri R.K. Anand, representative of the appellants and Shri Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and carefully perused the record.
Crl.Misc.No.M-7964 of 2013 filed by Ashok Mahendru and others for grant of pre-arrest bail in the case registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 415, 468, 471, 34, 120B IPC registered at Police Station, DLF, Phase 2, Gurgaon was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 19.03.2013 by relegating the petitioners to the remedy of seeking concession of regular bail before the trial Court. The relevant portions of that order are extracted below:
"I have considered the abovesaid facts and circumstances and I am of the opinion that the petitioners have already been granted the concession of regular bail by the trial Court in the FIR registered against them on December 19, 2012 but on account of offence under Section 467 IPC having not been mentioned in the application for pre-arrest bail or in order, the petitioners are apprehending arrest. Their application for prearrest bail appears to be only in offence under Section 467 IPC which is not mentioned in the order dated December 19, 2012. The order dated December 20, 2012, annexure P-5, passed by the trial Magistrate indicates that the Court had given a direction to the petitioners to apply for bail under Section 467 IPC. Prima facie, it appears to be a case where in one set of allegations and circumstances in an FIR, petitioners had been granted the concession of regular bail except for Section 467 IPC which for certain reasons (intentionally or unintentionally) has not been mentioned in the application. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to appear before the trial Court and seek concession of regular bail in offence under Section 467 IPC, is to be determined while adjudicating this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. At this stage, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed qua Shivangini Mahendru and others by this Court dated February 27, 2013 and interim order passed by this Court on March 5, 2013, are sub-judice before the Apex Court. Since the petitioners are evading appearance before the trial Court, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the petitioners to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed i.e. March 23, 2013. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for April 10, 2013.
To be heard alongwith CRM M-7353 of 2013.
Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioners will appear before the trial Court on March 23, 2013 and in case of their doing so, they will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the said Court in offence under Section 467 IPC as they have already been granted concession of regular bail in the other offences. It is made clear that the interim order passed by this Court or by the trial Court would be subject to any final order passed by the Apex Court. Appearance of the petitioners and grant of interim bail to them will not be considered as a circumstance conferring right on the petitioners to get the pre-arrest bail in the present case at the time of final adjudication."
SLP(Crl.) No.1979 of 2013 titled - Convenience Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivangini Mahindru and others was disposed of by this Court on 19.03.2013 along with a batch of similar special leave petitions. While refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judges of the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail to the private respondents, this Court made the following observations :
"The orders impugned in these petitions shall not constitute a precedent for the purpose of entertaining similar applications which have already been filed or which may be filed hereafter by other accused persons and every such application shall be decided on its own merits keeping in view the allegations contained in the first information report and other records make available by the prosecution or the complainant."
Although the observations made in the aforementioned orders could not have been relied upon for granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents, the learned Single Judge made those orders as the foundation for deciding CRM-M Nos.7964-7981 of 2013. This is evident from the following passage of the impugned order:
"I have gone through the entire circumstances and I am of the opinion that the petitioners had been granted the concession of regular bail except for section 467 IPC, which for certain reasons, intentionally or unintentionally had not been mentioned in the bail application. The petitioners were directed to appear before the trial court and seek the concession of bail in the offence u/s 467 IPC. Since the petitioners have already appeared before the trial court in the case and granted the concession of interim bail, the present petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C can be allowed. It is not out of place to observe here that the concession of pre- arrest bail granted to the co-accused of the petitioners, stands affirmed by the Apex Court."
In our view, the learned Single Judge was not at all justified in relying upon order dated 19.3.2013 passed by him and ignoring the unequivocal observation made by this Court that the orders impugned in the special leave petitions shall not constitute a precedent for the purpose of entertaining similar applications which had already been filed or which were to be filed thereafter by any other accused persons and every such application shall be decided on its own merits keeping in view the allegations contained in the first information report and other records made available by the prosecution.
The appeals are accordingly allowed, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.5.2013 in CRM-M Nos. 7964-7981 of 2013 are set aside and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the respondents.
Since the learned Single Judge had already expressed opinion on the merits of the case, we request the Chief Justice of the High Court to order listing of the cases before some other Bench.
Once the matters are listed before the Bench designated by the Chief Justice, the parties shall be free to make a request before the concerned Bench for early disposal of the matters.
The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who shall place the same before the Chief Justice for appropriate direction.