Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raju @ Raj Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Another on 24 September, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
CRM No. M-25657 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No. M-25657 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-24.09.2012
Raju @ Raj Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. C.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent.
Nemo for respondent No.2.
Mehinder Singh Sullar , J . (Oral)
Petitioner Raju @ Raj Kumar son of Roshan Lal, has preferred the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case instituted on private complaint, in which, he was summoned to face the trial, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 by the trial Court, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. During the course of preliminary hearing a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (G.S. Sandhawalia, J.), passed the following order on August 24, 2012:-
"Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been summoned in a complaint case under CRM No. M-25657 of 2012 (O&M) -2- Section 406, 504, 506 IPC and under Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the 'Act') pending in the Court of Smt.Jasbir Kaur, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jalandhar for 25.08.2012.
It is contended that the complainant owes some money to the petitioner who is running a jewellery shop and the daughter of the complainant was working with the wife of the petitioner who also owes some money and it is in such circumstances, the complaint has been lodged to avoid the payment and to put pressure. The Addl.Sessions Judge, Jalandhar has declined to grant bail on the ground that there is a bar under Section 18 of the Act.
Counsel for the petitioner states that since it is a complaint case and custodial interrogation is not required, the petitioner shall appear on the date fixed by this Court and directions be issued that the bail should be decided on the same date.
At this stage, Mr.Raman Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance in the Court to oppose the bail application.
Keeping in view the fact that custodial interrogation is not required and it is a complaint case, the petitioner is directed to appear on 25.08.2012 before the trial Court and file a bail application who shall decide the regular bail application on the same day.
Notice of motion for 24.09.2012."
5. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the certified copy of order dated 28.08.2012 and affidavit, which would reveal that the bail bonds and surety bonds, submitted by the petitioner have already been accepted and attested by the Magistrate, in pursuance of order of this Court .
6. In this view of the matter, the instant petition for anticipatory bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted to the petitioner, by this Court, vide order dated August 24, 2012 is hereby made absolute.
September 24, 2012 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) naresh.k Judge