The main legal point established is that a balanced approach, consideration of the accused's explanation, and adherence to judicial pronouncements can support the grant of anticipatory bail even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

JUDGMENT

ORDER

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

1. The petitioner apprehending arrest due to issuance of non bailable warrants, in the complaint captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a final opportunity be afforded to him to appear and attend the trial.

3. The contention on behalf of the State is that given the judicial pronouncements, once non-bailable warrants have been issued, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

REASONING:

4. As per paragraph 7 of the petitioner, the petitioner is a first offender.

5. The explanation offered by the petitioner is mentioned in paragraph 3 of the petition, which are extracted as follows:

'3. That the petitioner was not aware about the above mentioned facts and he came to know about these facts when his arrest warrants have been issued by the learned trial Court, as a police official came to his house and he apprehends his arrest at the hands of police. Thereafter the petitioner immediately approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar for the anticipatory bail which the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 02.03.2022. That the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar is annexed herewith as Annexure P-3.

6. Although the explanation is not that convincing but given the fact that the petitioner has now given an undertaking in paragraph 6 to comply with all directions, is a ground for affording him a final opportunity.

7. Without adjudicating the maintainability of this petition under section 438 CrPC, and leaving that question open; given the explanation offered by the accused coupled with the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, a balanced approach would work as an incentive, a catalyst, speeding up the process, and bringing the guilty to Justice and Justice to the guilty.

8. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

9. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for anticipatory bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

10. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, [Law Finder Doc Id # 1933969], this Court observed,

[53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the 'Court' and the 'Arresting Officer' should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer.

11. Given above, provided the accused is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR mentioned above, subject to furnishing a perso