Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
Gopi Chand Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 20536 of 2024
Decided On : 26-04-2024
For the Appellant :Mr. Mohit Rathee Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vikrant Pamboo AAG, Haryana
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the statutory remedy under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail is the proper course of action for a petitioner apprehending arrest, rather than seeking advance notice of arrest.
Headnote:
ADVANCE NOTICE - ARREST - The court discussed the legal provisions under Section 438 of the CrPC regarding anticipatory bail and the necessity of advance notice in case of arrest. The court emphasized that the petitioner should utilize the statutory remedy available under Section 438 CrPC instead of seeking advance notice, as it is a more appropriate legal recourse. The court's decision was influenced by the need to respect the statutory rights of the petitioner while ensuring that the investigative process is not hindered unnecessarily.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a 15-day advance notice before any potential arrest by the investigator in relation to FIR No. dated 29.06.2022, involving multiple sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner argued that such notice would prevent unnecessary harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petition was not maintainable in its current form and that the petitioner should pursue the statutory remedy under Section 438 CrPC for anticipatory bail instead of seeking advance notice.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to a 15-day advance notice before arrest, and whether the petition is maintainable in its current form.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appropriate legal remedy for apprehending arrest is through Section 438 CrPC, which allows for anticipatory bail, rather than seeking advance notice. The court clarified that if the investigator does not intend to arrest, they should inform the petitioner to protect his liberty.
Result: The petition was disposed of, with the court advising the petitioner to seek relief under Section 438 CrPC if desired, and all pending applications were also disposed of.
JUDGMENT
Mr. Anoop Chitkara, J.: FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 12 29.06.2022 State Vigilance Bureau, Hisar 120-B, 406, 418, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(1)(c)& 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 Seeking fifteen days’ advance notice in case the investigator proposes to arrest the petitioner in the FIR captioned above, the petitioner has come to this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 CrPC.
2. Counsel for the State submits that they do not need to file any formal response as the present petition is not maintainable in the present form. He further opposes the maintainability of the present petition because if the petitioner is apprehending arrest, then the statutory remedy lies under 438 CrPC.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had granted similar relief to Padam Kumar Bansal vide order dated 06.09.2023 passed in CRM-M-15824-2023. In the said order, it was clarified that if an investigator proposes to arrest the petitioner, the petitioner must be given one week’s advance notice.
4. Counsel for the State submits that the petition of Padam Kumar Bansal was filed for quashing of FIR itself, and when this Court was not inclined to grant a stay, then on the request of the petitioner, who was apprehending arrest, such order was passed and the said order was also valid only till the next date, i.e., 08.11.2023, as such the said order was not permanent.
5. An analysis of the above arguments would lead to the outcome that the limited prayer is for the issuance of advance notice of 15 days to the petitioner in case the investigator proposes to arrest him. The reasons mentioned for such a unique prayer are that, as of the date, the petitioner is not apprehending arrest, but if his apprehension turns true, it can put the petitioner through unnecessary harassment. Such an approach is not permissible because the petitioner can seek legal advice, and if he has a bit of apprehension, he can always resort to Section 438 CrPC. It is clarified that in case the petitioner files a petition under Section 438 CrPC and the investigator takes the stand that they do not propose to arrest him, then indeed, in such a situation, this Court can give directions to the investigator to inform him about his intention not to arrest so that they cannot later play tricks on person’s liberty and operate secretly by initially taking a stand that they do not intend to arrest and after withdrawal of such petition discreetly knocking at their doors at midnight to curtail their liberty.
6. In the given facts, it shall be permissible for the present petitioner to straightway come to this Court under Section 438 CrPC if he so desires, with a clarification that the petitioner shall not claim any prejudice in this regard and shall not claim that he had lost an opportunity by using concurrent jurisdiction of this Court which was also a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. This is a statutory right of the petitioner that should be respected.
7. Given the above, the present petition is disposed of in the terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
