Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukha Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab on 28 January, 2013
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM No.M-1973 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-1973 of 2013
Date of decision: 28.1.2013
Sukha Singh etc.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.MK Singla, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab
Mr.Harshit Jain, Advocate for the complainant.
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
By filing the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.51 dated 30.6.2012, registered under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the injuries attributed to the petitioners were declared simple in nature. He further submits that the during investigation Section 452 of IPC was dropped out. Challan was presented under Sections 324, 323, 34 IPC. Charges under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 of IPC were framed by the trial Court against the petitioners. Application filed under Section 437 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the trial Magistrate on 8.12.2012. Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was also CRM No.M-1973 of 2013 2 dismissed on 15.1.2013. Hence, this petition. He has placed reliance upon Rakesh vs. State of Haryana 2011(2) RCR (Crl.) 436,Kishan Singh (D) through L.Rs. vs. Gurpal Singh and others 2010 AIR (SC) 3624 and Mahesh Mahato vs. Sankar Kumar Mahato 1999(2) RCR (Crl.) 556 (Cal).
On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioners.
Heard.
The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners were declined by the learned trial Court on 17.7.2012 and thereafter, during investigation Section 452 of IPC was dropped. Thereafter, the petitioners surrendered before the police and they were released on bail by the police on 21.7.2012. After dropping Section 452 IPC, the complainant moved the application for framing of charge under Section 452 of IPC and for arresting the petitioners. On 7.12.2012, on the direction of learned ADJ, Sangrur, JMIC, Sunam framed the charges under Sections 452, 323, 324, 34 of IPC. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for grant of bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by learned JMIC, Sunam vide order dated 8.12.2012. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for grant of anticipatory bail on 10.12.2012, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 15.1.2013, by observing as under:-
"With my respectful submission and agreement to the pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel for CRM No.M-1973 of 2013 3 the accused, there is no reasonable basis for the applicants to apply the said pronouncements to the facts of the present case, when the provisions of Section 452 IPC were added in the FIR, the anticipatory bail was declined. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon case law reported in 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 774, titled as Maya Rani Guin and etc. vs. State of West Bengal of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that when the application for anticipatory bail is rejected, second application even if new circumstances developed after rejection or disposal of earlier application is not maintainable. Entertaining the second application for anticipatory bail is amount to review or reconsideration of the earlier order. In pronouncement reported in 2003(3) RCR (Criminal) 174 titled as Jaswinder Singh Jaryal and another versus State of Punjab of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,it has been held that where the regular bail was refused by Magistrate, but the accused was not taken in custody application of accused before High Court to seek anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The accused should surrender and seek regular bail. In pronouncement reported in 2012 (5) RCR (Criminal) 91, titled as Ravi Prakash and CRM No.M-1973 of 2013 4 others vs. State of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, anticipatory bail application for the offence punishable u/s 452 of the IPC was not granted. The accused in the present case did not surrender even before this Court, when once bail application under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. was declined due to the offence being Section 452 IPC, second bail application is not maintainable.
Thus, without prejudice to the merits of the case, the bail application is dismissed. Trial court record be returned. Bail application file be consigned."
The cited cases are distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the charges under Section 452 IPC including Sections 323, 324, 34 have been framed. The allegations are specific/ serious in nature. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.
28.1.2013 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE