Charanjit Singh @ Channi vs State of Punjab and Others

Jitendra Chauhan, J.—The instant petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, ''Cr.P.C.'') is for directing the respondents to comply with the provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C. and give advance notice of seven days in case the petitioner or any of his family member is required to be called in connection with any case and to protect their lives and liberty and not to harass the petitioner on account of publications carried out by the petitioner, annexed with the petition as Annexures P-1 and P-6. It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely involved in large number of FIRs. He further submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in as many as eight FIRs. It is alleged that the petitioner is being harassed on account of factionalism in the party. The petitioner is the Convener/President of Shiromani Khalsa Panchayat Regd. The learned counsel cites Mohinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, 1995(3) RCR (Cri) 471.

Written statement has been filed on behalf of the State. The petitioner is said to be habitual offender and stated to be involved in more than ten FIRs.

From the perusal of the reply and the chart of FIRs in para 2, thereof, it emerges that the petitioner has been acquitted in first eight FIRs, whereas, the petitioner is suffering trial in FIR 145 dated 03.07.2008, in which non-bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner, and FIR No. 116 dated 30.05.2007, in which he is already enlarged on bail. There is no other FIR other than those mentioned in para 2 of the preliminary submissions.

The petitioner has been acquitted in eight FIRs. The learned State counsel submits that no appeal has been preferred against acquittal by the State. In this background, this Court feels that the apprehensions raised and the prayer of the petitioner is not prima facie ill-founded.

In Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Haryana, 1990(2) RCR (Cri) 515, this Court observed as under:-

In Ram Chander Madhia Vs. The State of Haryana , vigilance enquiry was going on against an ex-Member of the Haryana Public Service Commission. No case had been registered. He approached this Court for anticipatory bail. The prayer was opposed on the ground that no case had been registered against the petitioner. M.M. Punchhi, J., who now adorns the Bench of the Supreme Court, directed that the petitioner shall be given a week''s time to enable him to approach the Court for anticipatory bail.

No authority to the contrary was brought to my notice by the learned Advocate General, Haryana. He, however, argued that the point was of great public importance and should be referred to a larger Bench, so that it is settled. In view of the fact that this Court has consistently held that in appropriate cases the lesser relief of direction to give notice to enable the petitioner to approach the Court for anticipatory bail can be given, there is no case for referring the matter to a larger Bench.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed to the extent that it is directed that the State and its various instrumentalities, including the police, shall give one week''s notice in writing to the petitioners in case it is proposed to arrest any of them in order to enable them to approach the Court concerned for appropriate relief of anticipatory bail.

In Bharat Inder Singh Chahal Vs. State of Punjab, , it has been heard as under:-

I have carefully considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition and judgments as cited above. A Constitution Bench of Hon''ble the Supreme Court way back in 1980 has dealt with the point in question and has held that for grant of anticipatory bail in the exercise of powers u/s 438 Cr.P.C. a first information report is not required and only the imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be the ground for exercise of such powers even if an FIR is not yet filed. The Hon''ble Court has also held that a blanket order of bail is bound to cause serious interference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because it will give protection in the cases of unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, even if the offence like murder is committed in presence of the public, therefore, this order may lead to lawlessness. This judgment of Constitution Bench of Hon''ble the Apex Court has held the field till date and an Hon''ble Division Bench of the Apex Court in Adri Dharan Das''s case (supra) has also decided by following the aforesaid ratio while holding that the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process of investigation is limited. The Court ordinarily will not interfere with investigation of a crime or, with the arrest of accused in a cognizable offence. The Court has also said that a blanket order should not generally be passed and the applicant should have reason to believe that he may be arrested. The Court has further held that normally a direction should not issue to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever". Such blanket order should not be passed as it would certainly be a blanket to cover or protect any or every kind of allegedly unlawful activity. An order u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is a device to secure the individual''s liberty, it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a seal against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely. Thus, neither of these judgments has put an absolute restriction and embargo on the exercise of powers of the High Court u/s 438 in granting limited protection by way of an order that the petitioner cannot be arrested till he is given an advance notice in a given case. Moreover, in the case of Hardeep Singh (supra) where a learned single Judge of this Court has granted prayer for advance notice, learned Advocate General Shri Mettawal had appeared as Senior Advocate and had espoused the plea of Mr. Cheema taken herein, but, curiously enough, now he has taken a diametrically different stand which he has tried to justify by referring to the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Rashid and another (supra). In that case, the State had come in appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court directing that if any crime is registered against the applicant in future within a period of three years he shall not be arrested in connection therewith except after service of four working days'' advance notice in writing to him. Further the High Court passed the said order in a contempt petition. However, in the instant case, the petitioner is a heart patient. He had held the post of Media Advisor to the former Chief Minister with the status of a Cabinet Minister. The only FIR against him as per the affidavit filed by the Inspector General of Police-cum-Director Vigilance Bureau, Punjab, is that he had promised a property dealer to get him one shop allotted in the City Centre Ludhiana and had accepted Rs. one lac in lieu thereof, thus, he is not an accused in the main scam. Besides, the Inspector General of Police-cum-Director, Vigilance Bureau, has stated that he has collected documented informations against him which are being examined by the Bureau. Moreover, several newspaper items about likelihood of arrests of the petitioner in future have already appeared as are referred to in this petition. In this background, when the petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C., I do not find any legal impediment in granting some temporary relief to the petitioner particularly when this Court is closed for summer vacations, till re-opening, while directing that he shall not be arrested in any case by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau without giving him four days'' notice in advance so that he could file anticipatory bail before the competent Court. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

As there is assertion that the petitioner carried out certain publications against his political rivals, therefore, he is being framed in the FIR by the Police. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the claims and counter-claims raised by the parties.

The Court is allowing the prayer for a stipulated period in view of the acquittal of the petitioner in eight cases. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, that in case the petitioner is required to be arrested in a matter other than the FIRs mentioned in the reply, having party faction connotations, the petitioner be given three days advance notice to enable him to avail legal remedies. This order shall remain operative for a period of next three months and shall be available to the petitioner only in case any fresh FIR is registered and the same is ridden with political connotations.