Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 1457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Shobha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CRWP-7882-2021
Decided On : 19-08-2021
Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harneet Singh Oberoi, Advocate and Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner; Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Narula, Advocate, Mr. Anmol Kheta, Advocate, Mr. Sheezan Hasmi, Advocate with Ms Anusha Nagraja, DAG, Punjab and Ms Diya Sodhi, Asstt. A.G., Punjab and Mr. P.S. Walia, Asstt. A.G. Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4.
The High Court has the power to grant anticipatory bail in exceptional circumstances, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, the possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the significant interests of the public or the State. The High Court also has the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, and this power can be exercised to protect the liberty of an individual who is arbitrarily deprived of personal liberty in an excess of State power.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION - HABEAS CORPUS - ILLEGAL DETENTION - PROTECTION FROM ARREST - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - MALA FIDE AND POLITICAL VENDETTA - SCOPE OF SECTION 482 CRPC - BLANKET ANTICIPATORY BAIL - PROTECTION FROM ARREST IN FUTURE CASES - POWER OF HIGH COURT - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED - JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DETENTION - LEGALITY OF ARREST - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 AND 120-B IPC AND SECTIONS 13(1)(A) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 464 IPC - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - SCOPE OF INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482 CRPC - PROTECTION OF LIBERTY - PREVENTION OF ABUSE OF PROCESS - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED BY HIGH COURT WHILE EXERCISING INHERENT POWERS - BALANCE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND INVESTIGATION RIGHTS OF POLICE - PROTECTION FROM ARREST IN FUTURE CASES - CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE CONSIDERED - MALA FIDE, POLITICAL VENDETTA, AND EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired IPS officer, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking directions to hand over the investigation of any matter registered against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other independent agency outside the State of Punjab and to keep any proposal for arresting him, in any criminal matter in abeyance for a specific period of time, so as to enable him to seek recourse to his legal remedies. The petitioner apprehended false implication in criminal matters on account of malice, mala fides, and ulterior motives on the part of the political party in power in the State of Punjab. The petitioner was granted interim protection from arrest in future cases by the High Court. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested in a case registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner challenged his arrest and detention, alleging that it was illegal and in violation of the protection orders granted by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner's arrest was illegal and in violation of the protection orders granted by the Court. The Court found that the allegations against the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 464 IPC so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC. The Court also found that the petitioner had been granted interim anticipatory bail in a case involving substantially the same allegations, and therefore, his arrest in the present case was patently illegal. The Court further held that the High Court has the power to grant anticipatory bail in exceptional circumstances, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, the possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the significant interests of the public or the State. The Court also held that the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, and this power can be exercised to protect the liberty of an individual who is arbitrarily deprived of personal liberty in an excess of State power.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's arrest was illegal and in violation of the protection orders granted by the High Court? 2. Whether the allegations against the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of Section 464 IPC so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim anticipatory bail in the present case, considering that he had been granted interim anticipatory bail in a case involving substantially the same allegations? 4. Whether the High Court has the power to grant anticipatory bail in exceptional circumstances? 5. Whether the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, and whether this power can be exercised to protect the liberty of an individual who is arbitrarily deprived of personal liberty in an excess of State power?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner's arrest was illegal and in violation of the protection orders granted by the High Court because the allegations against him did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 464 IPC so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC, and because he had been granted interim anticipatory bail in a case involving substantially the same allegations. 2. The Court held that the High Court has the power to grant anticipatory bail in exceptional circumstances, considering factors such as the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, the possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, the antecedents of the accused, and the significant interests of the public or the State. 3. The Court held that the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, and this power can be exercised to protect the liberty of an individual who is arbitrarily deprived of personal liberty in an excess of State power.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and ordered the release of the petitioner. The Court also directed the Investigating Officer of the case to give seven days' notice to the petitioner before arresting him in accordance with the protection orders granted by the Court.
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has filed present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issuance of the writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenue-Sumedh Singh Saini who is under mala fide and illegal detention of Vigilance Bureau at Vigilance Bhawan, SAS Nagar (Mohali) without any cause of action inspite of protection vide orders dated 11.10.2018, 23.09.2020 and order dated 12.08.2021(in case FIR No.13 dated 02.08.2021 under Sections 13(l)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 109 and 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, SAS Nagar, Mohali passed by this Court;
(ii) Appointment of Warrant Officer to raid the Vigilance Bhawan, Sector 68, SAS Nagar (Mohali) to get the detenue released from unwanted, illegal and manipulated detention on account of political vendetta by the State Government and personal vendetta of respondent No.5;
(iii) To protect the detenue from torture, inhuman treatment, mental and physical and to provide emergency medical aids in view of chest and heart related ailments; or
(iv) Any other direction or orders which this Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Briefly stated the petition has been filed on the averments that detenue-Sumedh Singh Saini retired as DGP Punjab on 30.06.2018 and since then he has been target of State Government ruling in Punjab for implicating him in the following four criminal cases :-
(i) FIR No.77 dated 06.05.2020 registered under Section 364, 201, 344, 330, 219 and 120-B of the IPC at Police Station City Mataur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali to which Section 302 of the IPC was added lateron.
(ii) FIR No.129 dated 07.08.2018 registered under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 341, 201, 218, 120-B, 34, 148, 149 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station CityKotkapura, District Faridkot (added as accused vide G.D. No.31 dated 09.10.2020).
(iii) FIR No.130 dated 21.10.2015 registered under Sections 302, 307, 341, 201, 218, 166-A, 120-B, 34, 194, 195 and 109 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot (added as accused vide G.D. No.16 dated 27.09.2020).
(iv) FIR No. 13 dated 02.08.2021 registered under Section 13(l)(b) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Sections 109 and 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Phase-1, Punjab at SAS Nagar (Mohali).
2.1 In all the four cases the petitioner has been allowed concession of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2.2 In the first case FIR No.77 dated 06.05.2020 detenue-Sumedh Singh Saini was allowed anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mohali vide order dated 11.05.2020 prior to addition of Section 302 of the IPC and after addition thereof he was granted anticipatory bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.12.2020 passed in SLP (Criminal) 4366 of 2020.
2.3 In the second case FIR No.129 dated 07.08.2018 this Court vide order dated 09.04.2021 passed in CWP No.17459 of 2019 quashed the investigation by making scathing observations against Mr. Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh, the then I.G. and Chairman of the S.I.T. and directed the State Government to constitute S.I.T. of three senior IPS Officers which was not to include Mr. Kunwar Vijay Pratap Singh and was to submit final report without any internal or external influence expeditiously preferably within six months. In the said order detenue-Sumedh Singh Saini was given clean chit holding his role as D.G.P. to be his official person. Initially arrest of the detenue was stayed vide order dated 04.03.2021 and extended vide order dated 22.03.2021 but was finally disposed of vide
