Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
Sandeep Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 28937 of 2023
Decided On : 02-06-2023
Anticipatory Bail - NDPS Act - Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1959 (Section 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 added later on) - [Section 438 Cr.P.C., Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1959, Section 25 of NDPS Act, 1985] - The court discussed the principles of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the factors connected with the provision, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may be arrested for a non-bailable offense. The court highlighted the importance of disclosing specific events and facts to enable objective examination by the court, and the limitations on invoking anticipatory bail after the arrest of the accused. The judgment also emphasized the need for a balance between individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational rights of the police, and the requirement for a change in fact-situation or law for subsequent bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a 2nd anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in a case under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1959. The petitioner had previously withdrawn a petition despite having interim protection and failed to join the investigation, and now sought anticipatory bail citing changed circumstances after being released on bail in another case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands, concealed the pendency of another FIR, and failed to join the investigation despite specific directions. The court concluded that the petitioner, a habitual offender involved in multiple FIRs, did not deserve the concession of bail, even on merits.
Issues: The issues involved the maintainability of the 2nd anticipatory bail petition, the petitioner's conduct, and the requirement for a change in circumstances for subsequent bail applications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may be arrested for a non-bailable offense, the disclosure of specific events and facts, and the limitations on invoking anticipatory bail after the arrest of the accused. The judgment also highlighted the requirement for a change in fact-situation or law for subsequent bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The court held that the 2nd anticipatory bail petition was not maintainable and ordered its dismissal, clarifying that the decision did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Moudgil, J.
1. This is a 2nd anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.27, dated 14.02.2022, under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1959 (Section 25 of NDPS Act, 1985 added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Fazilka, District Fazilka.
2. At the outset learned State counsel before proceedings on merits in the petition could start, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that without change of circumstances, second anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable.
3. To controvert and rebut the said arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in custody in other case bearing FIR No.66 of 2022, registered at Police Station Gajner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan which was registered on 28.06.2022 and has now been released on bail vide order dated 20.04.2023. It is on account, in earlier petition bearing No.CRM-M-11337-2022, the petitioner despite having an interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2022 (Annexure P-3) could not join the investigation and finally, he withdrawn the said petition on 10.03.2023 vide order of even date (Annexure P-6).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a valiant attempt ascertaining that now the circumstances have changed that is the petitioner has been released on bail in other FIR No.66 of 2022, registered at Police Station Gajner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan, and therefore, the instant petition is maintainable.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. On perusal of the record before this Court, it is evident that the petitioner firstly got the concession of interim protection vide order dated 17.03.2022 in earlier petition bearing No.CRM-M-11337-2022 (Annexure P-3) and on the next date of hearing i.e., on 01.09.2022, he sought time and the matter was adjourned to 01.03.2023 with the observations that interim directions, if any to continue (Annexure P-4). Still further, there was an order on the next date of hearing i.e., 01.03.2023 in the earlier petition, once the State counsel on instructions from ASI Gurmeet Singh informed that he has not joined the investigation so far in a very plain and simple assertion, the petitioner sought time, which granted, and the matter was adjourned to 10.03.2023 with a specific direction to the petitioner to join the investigation on 04.03.2023 at 10.00 A.M.
7. This Court is sanguine of the fact that the petitioner still failed to join the investigation, despite categoric direction by this Court and when the matter was listed on the next date of hearing i.e., 10.03.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner has withdrawn the said petition.
8. Today, to consider the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, wherein it is apparent on record that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and his conduct speaks about itself, who did not bother to inform the Court with regard to the registration of another FIR bearing No.66 of 2022, Police Station Gajner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan that too under the NDPS Act, in which, he was in custody and now has been released on bail only on 20.04.2023, which was very well within the knowledge of counsel for the petitioner and the said fact has been concealed intentionally and deliberately before this Court just to seek interim order extension from time to time. There was every occasion for the petitioner to disclose the fact of other FIR, but he very smartly as a clever device opted to withdraw the said petition without even disclosing of pendency of other FIR, in which he was in custody.
9. Today, an attempt was made for seeking anticipatory bail on the surmise that now the circumstance has changed, as he has been released on bail in the other FIR, to which this Court is not impressed to hold that there is a change of circumstance rather it wa
The court emphasized the need for tangible grounds for anticipatory bail and the duty to balance individual freedom and police investigation rights.
(1) Anticipatory bail petition – Once first anticipatory bail is denied without there being any change in fact situation, second application for same relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be entert....
Second anticipatory bail petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are maintainable if substantial changes in circumstances are demonstrated; mere reliance on new documents is insufficient.
The court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail can be granted in serious offences unless specifically excluded by law, and that the discretion to grant bail must consider the individual circumstances of....
The power to grant Anticipatory Bail is available to the High Court and the Court of Sessions, even when cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet has been filed. The belief that the accused may be arres....
A second or successive anticipatory bail petition is maintainable only if substantial changes in circumstances are demonstrated; mere reiteration of previous grounds is insufficient.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
