Skip to content


Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 186 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1980CriLJ1174; 18(1980)DLT405; 1981RLR37
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 438(1); Indian Penal code, 1860 - Sections 420
AppellantPritam Singh
RespondentState of Punjab
Advocates: D.C. Mathur,; N.K. Parmar and; S.T. Singh, Advs
Excerpt:
.....offence under section 420, 406 and 411 of the indian penal code. the petitioner was granted an interim bail on 18-4-1980 but when the same came for confirmation preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition was taken to the affect that this court could only grant interim bail to the petitioner with the direction that he should 'appear or approach the court concerned or the high court of punjab for seeking bail.' dismissing the objection.; the petitioner is a permanent resident of delhi and is carrying on his business at this place. according to the first information report, the agreement for printing and publishing the book 'sachi sakhi' was entered into at delhi between the complainant and the petitioner. the petitioner is apprehending arrest at delhi. ..........report having been registered at ludhiana in the state of punjab, this court can only grant interim bail to the petitioner with a direction that he should 'appear or approach the court concerned or the high court of punjab for seeking bail.' (4) the objection taken to my mind is entirely misconceived. the petitioner is a permanent resident of delhi and is carrying on his business at this place. according to the first information report, the agreement for printing and publishing the book 'sachi sakhi' was entered into at delhi between the complainant and the petitioner. the petitioner is apprehending arrest at delhi, prima fade, thereforee. this court has jurisdiction to grant him not only interim bail but to confirm the same within the purview of section 438 of the code of.....
Judgment:

Charanjit Talwar, J.

(1) By an order passed on April 8, 1980, the petitioner was granted interim bail under section 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner's case in the petition was that First Information Report No. 95 had been registered on March 1, 1980, at Police Station Kotwali, Ludbiana. against him for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 411, Indian Penal Code, on a complaint made by Shri Kapur Singh, I.C.S. (Retired), to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab.

(2) It is stated by the counsel for the State of Punjab that after April 8, 1980, the Investigating Officer has not contacted or arrested the petitioner. It is further stated that prior to the filing of the present petition 480 books of 'Sachi Sakhi', alleged to have been printed and published clandestinely by the petitioner, had been recovered from his business premises at Delhi.

(3) Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. According to him, the First Information Report having been registered at Ludhiana in the State of Punjab, this Court can only grant interim bail to the petitioner with a direction that he should 'appear or approach the Court concerned or the High Court of Punjab for seeking bail.'

(4) The objection taken to my mind is entirely misconceived. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and is carrying on his business at this place. According to the First Information Report, the agreement for printing and publishing the book 'Sachi Sakhi' was entered into at Delhi between the complainant and the petitioner. The petitioner is apprehending arrest at Delhi, prima fade, thereforee. this Court has jurisdiction to grant him not only interim bail but to confirm the same within the purview of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in Shri Gurbuksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, : 1980CriLJ1125 . have laid down the principles for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Courts to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this decision no fetter like the one being sought by Mr. Sodhi can be read. However, in given circumstances certain conditions can be imposed; one of the conditions may be that the anticipatory bail so granted is effective till a contingency arises, like the filing of the First Information Report or a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court might even impose a condition that within a given period, the petitioner should move the Court concerned for seeking bail. But it can not be said that the Court granting interim bail has no jurisdiction to confirm the order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(5) I hold that in the circumstances and the facts of this case, this Court has the jurisdiction to grant the present petition. As noticed above, although the interim order was passed on April 8, 1980, yet, so far, the petitioner has not been arrested. Palpably it shows that the Investigating Agency is not very keen to arrest the petitioner. I asked Mr. Sodhi to suggest the conditions, if any, which the State of Punjab would like this Court to put in the order confirming the interim bail granted earlier. Mr. Sodhi submits that the petitioner be asked to join investigation at Ludhiana or any other town of Punjab as required by the Investigating Officer.

(6) As at present advised, I am not inclined to agree with Mr. Sodhi. From the papers placed before me it appears that certain account books and other related papers showing the distribution of the book 'Sachi Sakhi' are only required by the police. For that purpose, it is not necessary for the petitioner to join investigation at Ludhiana or at other places in Punjab. As noticed above, the business premises of the petitioner are situated at Delhi. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has any other sub-offices in the State of Punjab. While confirming the order passed on April 8, 1980, I direct the petitioner, through his counsel to join investigation at Delhi. It is, however, open to the State of Punjab to seek modification of this order, at a later stage of investigation, if so advised.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //