Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baba Tek Singh And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 29 November, 2010
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
Crl. Misc. No. M-34710 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-34710 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.11.2010
Baba Tek Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. G.P. Vashist, Advocate for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre- arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioners under Sections 406, 120B, 467, 468, 471, 511 IPC at Police Station City Barnala vide FIR No.315 dated 21st November, 2010.
The FIR in the instant case has been lodged by certain trustees of Baba Gandha Singh Education Trust, Barnala making certain allegations inter alia of fraud against the petitioners while functioning as office bearers of the said trust and the Educational Institutions run by it. According to the allegations, they had spent money of the school without any approval and had prepared false and forged bills without making any purchase pursuant to same. According to the complainant, certain amounts have been withdrawn through self cheques from the Crl. Misc. No. M-34710 of 2010 2 account of the school which have been referred to in the audit report also.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that petitioners are sought to be arrested pursuant to the aforesaid FIR. According to him, the petitioners are victims of political vendetta and are, thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It appears that the petitioners earlier approached this court by way of a petition (Crl. Misc. No. M-33381 of 2010), which was disposed of on 15th November, 2011 (as stated in note-I on page 19 of the petition). Admittedly, in the said petition preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the State counsel had given an undertaking that in case the petitioners are sought to be arrested, at least three days notice would be given to them. On a query being put to Mr. Saggar whether any notice pursuant to said order has been received by the petitioners, he has replied in the negative. In view of the fact that no notice has been received by the petitioners till now, there is nothing to suggest that there is apprehension of arrest of the petitioners. Needless to observe that registration of FIR does not necessarily mean that petitioners are likely to be arrested, particularly when no notice has been served on them till now. This apart, this court feels that a petition for pre-arrest bail should normally be preferred before the court of Sessions in the first instance despite concurrent jurisdiction vested in this court. Same was the Crl. Misc. No. M-34710 of 2010 3 view of the Kerala High Court in the judgment reported as Usman Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police and another, 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 814, where self imposed rule of restriction despite concurrent jurisdiction vested in the High Court was approved except in exceptional circumstances (para 37). Similar observations were made by this court in judgment reported as R.K. Ranga Vs. State of Haryana, 1997 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 611 (para 6). Learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, not been able to show why such remedy was not availed by the petitioners before the court of Sessions.
I am, thus, of the considered view that the present petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 29, 2010 'rajpal'