COCP No. 833 of 2006

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

COCP No. 833 of 2006

Date of Decision: May 15, 2007

Malkeet Singh

......... Petitioner

versus

Satwant Singh

.......... Respondent

Present:-

Shri Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner

Shri R.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the respondent

Shri Arvind Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

The present contempt petition is directed against Satwant

Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Dhane Ke Banger, Tehsil

Batala, District Gurdaspur, alleging willful and deliberate disobedience to

the orders passed by this Court on 16.05.2006 granting anticipatory bail to

the petitioner.

In FIR No. 115 dated 16.12.2005 under sections 307, 320, 324,

323, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 25 and 27 of the Arms

Act, 1859, certain allegations were leveled against the petitioner and few

others. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR was that on

16.12.2005 at 10.30 a.m., the petitioner fired a short from .12 bore gun

towards the complainant with intention to kill him but the complainant took

shield of the door and saved himself. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail

COCP No. 833 of 2006

[2]

from this Court, after his application was rejected by the learned Sessions

Judge, inter alia, on the ground that offence under section 307 of the Indian

Penal Code has been deleted by the prosecution. This Court passed the

following order on 17.02.2006:-

“

Learned counsel contends that offence under section 307

IPC has been deleted vide case diary No.14 dated 24.01.2006

and offence under section 336 IPC has been added. Learned

counsel further submits that the injury under section 326 IPC

has been attributed to another accused, namely, Charan Singh

and that offence under section 336 IPC is bailable.

Notice of motion for 23.03.2006.

In the meantime, the petitioner, in the event of his arrest,

shall be admitted to interim bail to the satisfaction of the

arresting officer. He shall, however, join investigation as and

when called for by the police and shall comply with all the

conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

It may be mentioned here that though in the above order it is

recorded that vide case diary No. 14 dated 24.01.2006, offence under

section 307 IPC has been deleted, but, in fact, it is case diary No. 15 dated

24.01.2006, as per record produced before this Court.

On 16.05.2006, ASI Gurinder Singh instructed learned

Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, who stated that investigation qua the

petitioner is complete and that he is not required for any further

interrogation etc. The interim bail granted on 17.02.2006 was ordered to

remain in force for a period of 10 days after the filing of challan or till the

disposal of the application for regular bail, whichever is earlier. The said

order reads as under:-

“

Learned Assistant Advocate General on instructions from

ASI Gurinder Singh states that investigation qua the petitioner

COCP No. 833 of 2006

[3]

is complete and he is not required for any further interrogation

etc.

In view of the above, the order dated 17.02.2006 of

interim bail shall remain in force for a period of ten days after

the filing of challan or till the disposal of application for regular

bail, whichever is earlier”.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though offence under

section 307 IPC was deleted during the course of investigation but still the

petitioner has been arrested for the offence under section 307 of the Indian

Penal Code on 26.05.2006 i.e., just after 10 days of making statement before

this Court that investigation qua the petitioner is complete and that the

petitioner is not required for further interrogation. It was, thus, alleged that

the respondent has willfully and intentionally disobeyed the