Bhupinder Singh vs U.T.Chandigarh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

A case has been registered against the petitioner with respect to offences punishable under Sections 376, 420 and 498A, Indian Penal Code. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail.

The sum and substance the assertion of the petitioner are that the petitioner is working in State Bank of Patiala. Complainant in the year 1990 was working as a clerk in All Bank Employees Urban Salary Earners Thrift and Credit Society Ltd, Chandigarh. The petitioner used to come to the office of the complainant. They developed intimacy. The petitioner asked the complainant to marry him stating that he is unmarried. The complainant asked the petitioner that she may be allowed to consult her parents. The petitioner insisted that he cannot live without her and at his insistence marriage was solemnized in a simple ceremony at Gurdwara. After marriage, they lived for sometimes in house No. 2566 Sector 22C, Chandigarh. Therefore they shifted to Section 42B, Chandigarh.

On 6th March 1994, while the complainant and the petitioner went to Rose Garden Davinder Kumar Bansal and Vinod Kumar Sharma friends of the petitioner met the complainant. She was told that the petitioner was already married. On these broads facts, the complainant made a complaint against the petitioner punishable under the offences referred to above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner highlighted the facts so as to urge that he was never married to the complainant and further that the complainant had come to the house of the petitioner. She was aware of the fact that the petitioner is already married. In view of this, the learned counsel urged that in fact the petitioner has been falsely implicated.

In this process, it has been admitted that the petitioner is already married for the purposes of the present order. Learned counsel appearing for the Union Territory, Chandigarh has drawn my attention to number of applications purported to have been filed by the petitioner in which the name of the complainant is mentioned as his wife. It negatives the plea that the petitioner did not marry the complainant. As regards the other contention suffice it to say that if the complainant knew that the petitioner as already married, it is unnatural that she should again marry the petitioner, as such.

The grounds on which anticipatory bail can be granted are well known. Leading case on the subject is that of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. Sarabjit Singh another, AIR 1980 SC 1632. Hon''ble C.J. Chandrachud speaking for the Bench in paragraph 31 concluded and mentioned some of the grounds when anticipatory bail can be granted or refused, it reads :

"In regard to anticipatory bail. If the proposed accusation appears to stem not from the motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on the bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides, and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate the combined effect of which must weigh with the Court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant''s presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the Court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail."

In the present case the petitioner obviously had cheated the complainant on false pretext. She married him because it had been told to the petitioner that he is unmarried. She is alleged to have given birth to child. When such is the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled to the discretionary relief. The larger interest of the public and the State requires that he should not be admitted to anticipatory bail.

For these reasons application fails.