Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Bhupinder Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 June, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRM-M-19563-2013 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19563-2013
Date of decision:11.06.2013
Dr. Bhupinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.05.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby his revision petition filed against the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, has been dismissed.
In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a MBBS Doctor and is serving as PCMS-1 at Primary Health Centre (PHC), Bajakhana, District Faridkot. His wife, namely, Dr. Mandeep Kaur, registered one FIR No.13 dated 27.01.2011, under Sections 498-A and 25/27(I)/25(54) of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Kotwali, District Faridkot. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail in the aforesaid FIR which was allowed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on 30.04.2011. After the grant of anticipatory bail and before presentation of challan, he went abroad on 15.06.2011 and returned on 26.06.2011. His CRM-M-19563-2013 [2] ***** wife (respondent No.2), filed an application for cancellation of bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, and also moved an application before the learned Trial Court on 17.02.2012 for issuance of directions to the petitioner to surrender his passport. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on 29.03.2012, passed the following order:-
"9. Thus, by leaving India without the prior permission of the learned trial court, the accused certainly liable himself for cancellation of anticipatory bail. However, FIR was registered against the accused under Section 498-A IPC at the instance of his wife. Accused Dr. Bhupinder Singh has no heinous criminal background but is guilty of committing matrimonial offence. The chance of compromise and maintenance of matrimonial ties between the accused and the complainant would be diminished if he is put behind the bars after cancelling the anticipatory bail. Moreover, ld. Counsel for the complainant also contended that the accused is frequently visiting England as he is involved in adultery with some other woman settled in Bedford Shire. The purpose of cancellation of bail is to refrain him from visiting abroad frequently and to persuade him to live with the complainant, who has two children i.e. one minor boy and one teenage girl. Accused has no defence as to why he violated the order of the court especially when his liberty to move out of India was not snatched but only restriction was put on the same by imposing condition to take prior permission from the learned trial court before leaving India, so that the complainant may be in the knowledge of every movement of the accused. Therefore, in order to keep CRM-M-19563-2013 [3] ***** the chance of compromise between the accused and complainant alive and at the same time for punishing him for violating the order of the court by leaving India without the prior permission of the court, instead of cancelling the anticipatory bail order, accused is directed to surrender his passport before the learned trial court within three days from the date of passing of this order. However, in case accused failed to abide by this order and again violated the order of the court by not surrendering his passport anticipatory bail order dated 30.04.2011 in favour of the accused, would cease automatically and learned trial court shall bound to cancel his bail bond and surety bonds after a period of three days from the passing of this order and put the accused behind the bards during trial. Copy of this order be placed on the file of ld. Trial Court and the same be returned. File of this court be consigned."
On 02.04.2012, the learned Trial Court passed the following order:-
"File received from the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, along with copy of order dated 29.03.2012 passed by learned Court aforesaid, vide which accused Dr. Bhupender Singh was directed to surrender his Passport before this Court within three days from the date of order aforesaid. It was also ordered that in case the accused failed to abide by this order dated 29.03.2012 and again violated the order of the Court by not surrendering his Passport, anticipatory bail order dated 30.04.2011 in favour of accused, would cease automatically and trial Court (present court) shall bound to cancel his bail bonds and surety bonds and to put the accused behind the bards. But in pursuance of CRM-M-19563-2013 [4] ***** order dated 29.03.2012 passed by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, accused Dr. Bupinder Singh was required to surrender his Passport in this Court on on or before 31.03.2012, but he has not complied with the order dated 29.03.2012 passed by ld. Court aforesaid. From the 31.03.2012 also further period fo two days is going to expire today, but to no effect and as such this court is left with no other alternative except to cancel bail bonds and surety bonds of accused Dr. Bhupinder Singh. Accordingly, bailbonds and surety bonds of accused Dr. Bhupinder Singh is cancelled and non bailable warrant of arrest of accused Dr. Bhupinder Singh be issued for 13.07.2012, the date already fixed in this case."
After the aforesaid orders were passed, the petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before this Court in which it was stated by him that he could not deposit the passport as the same was deposited with the British Embassy on 24.02.2012. It was also averred that the passport was collected from the British Embassy on 16.05.2012 and handed over it to the Investigating Officer at the time of hearing but the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 16.05.2012 with the following observations:-
"It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he could not comply with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 29.03.2012 as passport of petitioner was already deposited with British Embassy on 24.02.2012 and that however, he had taken the same from British Embassy after filing of present petition before this Court and he has brought the passport today and ready to hand over the same to CRM-M-19563-2013 [5] ***** the Investigating Officer. The passport of the petitioner has been handed over to the Investigating Officer of this case, who is present in the Court.
However, no such plea was taken by petitioner before learned Additional Sessions Judge or learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot before whom the case is pending. No application was moved before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot that he was not in a position to comply with the said order as his passport was not in his custody, rather he filed another petition for anticipatory bail before this Court.
In view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused, rather he should appear before learned trial Court and explain his conduct. His bail has already been cancelled by learned trial Court vide order dated 02.04.2012 on account of non-compliance of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot dated 29.03.2012.
Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Dr. Bhupinder Pal Singh is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit."
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred SLP(Crl.) No.5075 of 2012 before the Apex Court in which the following order was passed on 12.07.2012:-
"Taken on board.
We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to present himself before the Trial Court and move appropriate CRM-M-19563-2013 [6] ***** application within two weeks from today."
The petitioner then filed a revision petition against the order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court by which his bail bonds were cancelled due to non-compliance of the order dated 29.03.2012. The said revision petition has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide his order dated 20.05.2013, with the following observations:-
"Here it is suffice to say that the relief being sought by the revisionist in the present revision has already been declined by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 16.05.2012 as well as by the Hon'ble Apex of the land vide order dated 12.07.2012. Instead of complying with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 12.07.2012, thereafter, revisionist has filed the present revision petition on 21.07.2012. Accordingly, present revision is not maintainable in this Court and the same stands dismissed. Copy of the order be placed on the file of the learned trial court and the same be returned. File of the court be consigned."
It is argued by counsel for the petitioner in this case that the petitioner could not have complied with the order dated 29.03.2012 because his passport was already surrendered with the British Embassy. At the same time, he has admitted that this plea was never raised before the Courts below.
During the course of hearing, counsel for respondent No.2, who was watching the proceedings, has put in appearance with the permission of the Court and brought to my notice another order dated CRM-M-19563-2013 [7] ***** 15.10.2012 passed by this Court in CRM-M-16454-2012 in which the petitioner had filed proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR in question. The said petition was also dismissed by this Court on 15.10.2012 with the following observations:-
"The present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.13, dated 27.1.2011, under Sections 498A, 406 IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot, District Faridkot.
Heard.
It has been brought to my notice by learned counsel for the complainant-respondent no.2, who has appeared of his own in this petition, that petitioner already moved special leave to appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court against judgment and order dated
16.05.2012 passed by this Court in Crl. M. No.M-10346 of 2012. He has also shwon a copy of the said order, which reads as under:-
"Taken on board.
We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to present himself before the trial Court and move appropriate application within two weeks from today."
It has been further contended by learned counsel for the complainant-respondent no.2 that petitioner had not complied with the said order of Hon'ble Apex Court and has not presented himself before the trial Court and hence, it is contended that the present petition for quashing of the FIR is not maintainable.
There is force in the argument of learned counsel CRM-M-19563-2013 [8] ***** for respondent no.2. Petitioner is absconding from the trial Court. His presence is ordered to be secured by non=-bailable warrants and case is fixed for securing his presence for 19.10.2012 as has been contended by learned counsel for respondent no.2.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner requests for withdrawal of this petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn."
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the record and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of any merit because the petitioner was to comply with the order dated 29.03.2012 which had been passed in his presence. When he appeared along with his advocate, he could have easily mention before that Court at that time that he would not be in a position to surrender his passport within the prescribed period. He had gone abroad during the pendency of the bail application without seeking prior permission of the Court and has concealed the fact that he had also filed CRM-M-16454-2012 for quashing of the FIR which has been dismissed by this Court.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit.
June 11, 2013 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge