while offence registered in one state bail can be obtained from another state, state where accused is living !! Delhi HC Gem
Learning
****************************
* alleged offence and FIR registered in State of Punjab
* accused lives in Delhi
* accused seeks bail in Delhi
* pp contends that bail can be given on in Punjab
* Honourable Delhi HC says bail can be given in Delhi as well
* Quoting the honourable HC "....The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and is carrying on his business at this place. According to the First Information Report, the agreement for printing and publishing the book 'Sachi Sakhi' was entered into at Delhi between the complainant and the petitioner. The petitioner is apprehending arrest at Delhi, prima fade, therefore. this Court has jurisdiction to grant him not only interim bail but to confirm the same within the purview of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in Shri Gurbuksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, . have laid down the principles for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Courts to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this decision no fetter like the one being sought by Mr. Sodhi can be read...."
******************************************************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM INDIANKANOON SITE
******************************************************************
Delhi High Court
Pritam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 July, 1980
Equivalent citations: 1980 CriLJ 1174, 18 (1980) DLT 405, 1981 RLR 37
Author: C Talwar
Bench: C Talwar
JUDGMENT
Charanjit Talwar, J.
(1) By an order passed on April 8, 1980, the petitioner was granted interim bail under section 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner's case in the petition was that First Information Report No. 95 had been registered on March 1, 1980, at Police Station Kotwali, Ludbiana. against him for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 411, Indian Penal Code, on a complaint made by Shri Kapur Singh, I.C.S. (Retired), to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab.
(2) It is stated by the counsel for the State of Punjab that after April 8, 1980, the Investigating Officer has not contacted or arrested the petitioner. It is further stated that prior to the filing of the present petition 480 books of 'Sachi Sakhi', alleged to have been printed and published clandestinely by the petitioner, had been recovered from his business premises at Delhi.
(3) Mr. Sodhi, learned counsel for the respondent, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this petition. According to him, the First Information Report having been registered at Ludhiana in the State of Punjab, this Court can only grant interim bail to the petitioner with a direction that he should "appear or approach the Court concerned or the High Court of Punjab for seeking bail."
(4) The objection taken to my mind is entirely misconceived. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Delhi and is carrying on his business at this place. According to the First Information Report, the agreement for printing and publishing the book 'Sachi Sakhi' was entered into at Delhi between the complainant and the petitioner. The petitioner is apprehending arrest at Delhi, prima fade, therefore. this Court has jurisdiction to grant him not only interim bail but to confirm the same within the purview of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a case reported in Shri Gurbuksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, . have laid down the principles for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Courts to grant anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this decision no fetter like the one being sought by Mr. Sodhi can be read. However, in given circumstances certain conditions can be imposed; one of the conditions may be that the anticipatory bail so granted is effective till a contingency arises, like the filing of the First Information Report or a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court might even impose a condition that within a given period, the petitioner should move the Court concerned for seeking bail. But it can not be said that the Court granting interim bail has no jurisdiction to confirm the order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(5) I hold that in the circumstances and the facts of this case, this Court has the jurisdiction to grant the present petition. As noticed above, although the interim order was passed on April 8, 1980, yet, so far, the petitioner has not been arrested. Palpably it shows that the Investigating Agency is not very keen to arrest the petitioner. I asked Mr. Sodhi to suggest the conditions, if any, which the State of Punjab would like this Court to put in the order confirming the interim bail granted earlier. Mr. Sodhi submits that the petitioner be asked to join investigation at Ludhiana or any other town of Punjab as required by the Investigating Officer.
(6) As at present advised, I am not inclined to agree with Mr. Sodhi. From the papers placed before me it appears that certain account books and other related papers showing the distribution of the book 'Sachi Sakhi' are only required by the police. For that purpose, it is not necessary for the petitioner to join investigation at Ludhiana or at other places in Punjab. As noticed above, the business premises of the petitioner are situated at Delhi. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner has any other sub-offices in the State of Punjab. While confirming the order passed on April 8, 1980, I direct the petitioner, through his counsel to join investigation at Delhi. It is, however, open to the State of Punjab to seek modification of this order, at a later stage of investigation, if so advised.
********************
FOLLOW
@ATMwithDick on twitter or
http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ (recent blog so recent cases )
FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment