SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1980 Supreme(Del) 190

High Court Of Delhi
PRITAM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) 186 of 1980
Decided On : 07/23/1980

Advocates Appeared:
D.C.MATHUR, N.K.PARMAR, S.T.SINGH

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court granting interim bail has the jurisdiction to confirm the order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

Headnote:

Interim Bail - Jurisdiction of Court - The court held that it had jurisdiction to grant interim bail to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, despite the objection raised by the respondent's counsel. The court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shri Gurbuksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab and emphasized that certain conditions can be imposed on the anticipatory bail, but the court granting interim bail has the jurisdiction to confirm the order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was granted interim bail under section 438 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure after a First Information Report was registered against him for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 411, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was a permanent resident of Delhi and was carrying on his business there. The Investigating Officer had not contacted or arrested the petitioner after the interim bail was granted.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that it had jurisdiction to grant the interim bail to the petitioner, and directed the petitioner to join the investigation at Delhi, rejecting the respondent's counsel's request for the petitioner to join investigation at Ludhiana or any other town of Punjab.

Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the court to grant interim bail to the petitioner, as raised by the respondent's counsel.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Shri Gurbuksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, which emphasized that the court granting interim bail has the jurisdiction to confirm the order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Final Decision: The court confirmed the interim bail granted to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to join the investigation at Delhi.

CHARANJIT TALWAR, J. (Oral)

( 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, therefore. 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, (1980) 2 SCC 565. 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 su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top