Punjab-Haryana High Court
Makhan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 July, 2013
Author: M.M.S. Bedi
Bench: M.M.S. Bedi
Raj Kumar Arora
CRM-32617-2013 in 2013.07.24 13:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-13568-2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-32617-2013 in
CRM-M-13568-2013.
Date of decision: July 19, 2013.
Makhan Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
PRESENT Mr.S.S.Siao, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Application filed by the petitioner bearing No.CRM- M-40388-2012 for the grant of pre-arrest bail was dismissed by this Court as the allegation against the petitioner was that in a black Innova car standing in the name of petitioner 10 bags of poppy husk were recovered while the petitioner was not arrested from the spot as he managed to escape.
The petitioner filed a second petition bearing CRM No.13568-2013 claiming the changed circumstances to the effect that one Chanan Singh had furnished an affidavit indicating that he had actually purchased the Innova car of the petitioner from which 10 bags of poppy husk were recovered. Second application was entertained by this Court on 30.4.2013 and notice of motion was 1 Raj Kumar Arora CRM-32617-2013 in 2013.07.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13568-2013 (O&M) issued to the State for 12.7.2013. However it was observed as follows: -
"Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered on the basis of secret information that 10 bags of poppy husk were being carried in Innova.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle involved in the case stood already sold by him to one Chanan Singh. Affidavit of said Chanan Singh has been placed on record indicating transfer. The recovery is alleged to have been effected on 26.8.2012.
Without commenting whether the affidavit dated 20.7.2012 is a procured document, it is sufficient to observe that the petitioner could not be arrested from the spot and he being accused in two other cases was probably known to the police officials. Identity of the petitioner is apparently in controversy.
Notice of motion for 12.7.2013.
Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioner will join investigation on 18.5.2013. In case of petitioner doing so, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer."
In view of above order, the petitioner had an interim protection till 12.7.2013 to be released on interim bail on his joining investigation on 18.5.2013. Since the stage of investigation or stage 2 Raj Kumar Arora CRM-32617-2013 in 2013.07.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13568-2013 (O&M) of charge sheet had not been brought to the notice of the Court, it was not expected that the prosecution agency would present challan before 18.7.2013. Be that as the case may be, it was the discretion of the Investigating Agency to present challan. It is apparent that the challan was presented before Special Judge on 6.6.2013 on which date the petitioner filed an application for the grant of regular bail on the basis of order passed by this Court on 30.4.2013. The order passed by Judge, Special Court granting bail to the petitioner reads as follows:-
"Reports of Ahlmad Perused. Challan be registered. An application for accepting the bail bonds has been moved. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the accused are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with a surety in the like amount. Requisite bonds furnished, which have been accepted and attested. Copies of challan supplied to accused free of costs as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C. Now case is adjourned to 18.7.2013, for consideration on charge."
When the matter came up for final hearing before this Court on 12.7.2013, taking into consideration the merits of the case the application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed. The factum of petitioner having been granted any relief on the basis of order dated 30.4.2013 was not brought to the notice of the Court. 3 Raj Kumar Arora
CRM-32617-2013 in 2013.07.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13568-2013 (O&M)
Through the instant misc. application, it has been prayed that order dated 12.7.2013 dismissing the application for pre- arrest bail filed by the petitioner may be modified to the extent as having rendered infructuous as regular bail to the petitioner has already been granted by the trial Court.
I have carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The interim order passed in favour of the petitioner on 30.4.2013 was meant to grant interim relief. i.e., An interim direction is issued that the petitioner will join investigation on 18.5.2013. In case of petitioner doing so, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
Without appreciating the word interim bail, the petitioner filed an application for regular bail at the time of presentation of challan seeking the protection of interim order. The appropriate remedy for the Judge, Special Court, Sangur, Sh.S.K.Sachdeva, was to release the petitioner on interim bail subject to final decision of the application for pre-arrest bail which was pending before this Court for 12.7.2013.
After receiving the order passed on 12.7.2013, i.e., the final order, the arresting officer or the trial Court was required to treat the petitioner in accordance with orders of this Court. It is apparent that misconstruing the interim relief to petitioner and misusing the liberty granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has been 4 Raj Kumar Arora CRM-32617-2013 in 2013.07.24 13:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-13568-2013 (O&M) able to seek the benefit of regular bail by moving an application for regular bail and furnishing bail bonds which were accepted by the Judge, Special Court without appreciating the fact that the relief which had been granted to the petitioner by this Court on 30.4.2013 was only an interim direction and he was only entitled to interim bail.
In the garb of order of interim bail, the petitioner has been able to achieve the order of regular bail on 6.6.2013 making the order dated 12.7.2013, dismissing second application for pre-arrest bail of the petitioner, a nullity permitting the accused to get the relief indirectly which he could not get directly by misleading or by misconstruing the interim order, which is not permissible In view of above said circumstances, this present application for modification of order dated 12.7.2013, i.e., by dismissing the application as having rendered infructuous, deserves to be dismissed. The misc. application for recalling the order dated 12.7.2013, is therefore, dismissed.
The order dated 6.6.2013, having been passed in contravention to the interim order dated 30.4.2013, will be deemed to be an order for interim bail. The order of interim bail to the petitioner dated 6.6.2013, will cease to exist w.e.f., 12.7.2013 when the interim relief granted to the petitioner was neither confirmed nor extended. The petitioner is liable to be arrested w.e.f. 12.7.2013 irrespective of the order dated 6.6.2013 which if seen in context to the order dated 30.4.2013 is only an order of interim bail.
5 Raj Kumar Arora
CRM-32617-2013 in 2013.07.24 13:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-13568-2013 (O&M)
Dismissed. The petitioner can be arrested in FIR No.74 of 26.8.2012, under Section 15 of the ND & PS Act, registered at Police Station, Amargarh, District Sangrur. There is no order of regular bail granted to him by the High Court or by the Judge, Special Court. It is made clear that anything said in this order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. It will be open to the trial Court to consider the circumstances and pass any appropriate order in the application for regular bail if any filed by the petitioner on his surrender before the Court.
The Judge, Special Court, is advised to carefully peruse the interim orders passed by the High Court while granting relief.
(M.M.S. BEDI) July 19, 2013. JUDGE rka 6