Exceptional circumstances, such as the cancellation of the FIR, initiation of proceedings against the complainant, and absence of need for custodial interrogation, can justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Puri. J. (Oral) - The petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail in complaint No. COMI-166/2015, dated 06.05.2015 titled as Preeti Vs. Om Parkash & others filed under Sections 376-D, 323, 324, 328 read with Section 34 IPC, pending in the court of learned JMIC, Jalandhar.

2. On 15.01.2020, the following order was passed:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that allegations that are set out in the complaint were already investigated in the FIR that had been registered by the complainant-prosecutrix on the same allegations. After due investigation, cancellation report was filed. It is further submitted that in fact, petitioner herein had filed suit for damages, which stands decreed, apart from the fact that a Kalandra has also been filed against the complainant and charges have been framed.

Notice of motion for 07.05.2020.

On the asking of Court, Mr. Davinder Bir Singh,DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court accepts notice for respondent-State.

In the meantime, arrest of the petitioner is stayed for a period of two weeks. The petitioner is directed to join the proceedings before the trial Court within a period of two weeks and on his doing so, the trial Court is directed to release him on interim bail, subject to his furnishing bail bond and surety bonds to its satisfaction. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner herein fails to join proceedings within the stipulated period, any interim protection granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically vacated. . "

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in pursuance to the interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has joined the proceedings before the trial Court and has been released on interim bail. Furthermore on the basis of same allegations at the earlier instance an FIR bearing No.52 dated 20.07.2014 under Section 376-D was registered at Police Station, Women Cell, Jalandhar, the same was cancelled and the proceedings under Section 182 IPC have been initiated against the respondent No.2.

4. On the instructions from ASI Shishpal Singh has not assailed the aforesaid factual aspects.

5. Learned counsels for the complainant have joined the proceedings on behalf of respondent No.2 and have opposed the bail application on the score that there are serious allegations of commission of offence under Section 376-B of IPC and even when the FIR was registered, the petitioners have not sought pre-arrest bail.

6. Be that as it may, the occurrence relates back to 19.07.2014, FIR which was registered on the basis of same allegations has been cancelled, the proceedings under Section 182 IPC have been initiated against the complainant and furthermore, the petitioner has alreadysurrendered and released on interim bail in pursuance of the interim directions issued by this Court. Merely because the petitioner had not sought pre-arrest bail when the FIR was registered and was subsequently cancelled cannot be termed to be a circumstance to deny the bail to the petitioner, at a subsequent stage in the proceedings which have been initiated on the basis of the complaint by respondent No.2. It is a complaint case and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

7. As such sufficient exceptional circumstances are made out to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The order dated 15.01.2020, vide which the petitioners were granted interim bail, is made absolute.

8. However, the petitioner is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in the trial Court within a period of one month from today.

9. The petition stands allowed.