Jarnail Singh vs State of Punjab

G.S. Chahal J.

Jarnail Singh petitioner is being proceeded against under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (briefly the Code) in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, District Patiala. He has applied for quashing of those proceedings and also the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in those proceedings.

The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a complaint made by Smt. Inderjit Kaur, Staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib to the Senior Medical Officer wherein she had complained about Jarnail Singh having come there is a drunken condition and abusing her and every one else, after the incident in which three persons had come to the hospital and asked her to examine them for injuries, while, in fact, they had none. Head Constable Malkeet Singh went to make inquiry about the dispute and summoned both, Smt. Inderjit Kaur and Jarnail Singh. While this inquiry was in progress, Jarnail Singh started quarrelling with Inderjit Kaur, gave abuses and was ready to come to blows. The Head Constable and other officials tried to make him understand reason, but to no effect. Finding no other alternative, he arrested the petitioner and started proceedings under section 107/151 of the Code. The learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 5121989, issued noticed under section 111 of the Code and also ordered the petitioner to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety under section 116(3) of the Code in the Court.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that there was sufficient material on the record to show that there was apprehension of breach of peace at the hands of the petitioner. When the Head Constable went to make inquiry into the incident in which Smt. Inderjit complained of being abused by Jarnail Singh, the petitioner started quarrelling and abusing. The HC having found apprehension of breach of peace, moved into action. No fault can be found if the Police initiated the proceedings under Sec. 107/151 of the Code and arrested him.

The order of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate calling for a bond under Sec. 116(3) of the Code is, however, not justified. The Subsection, so far it is relevant, reads as under :

"116 (3) After the commencement, and before the completion of the inquiry under subsection (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace, or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under Section 111 has been made to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded."

The Magistrate had to record in writing the reasons for which he felt it necessary to call upon the petitioner to furnish a bond pending the inquiry proceedings. It was just not a routine matter for calling such a bond, but it had to be on the basis of some material, i.e. a judicial finding to call for a bond under section 116(3) of the Code. I hereby accept the criminal miscellaneous partly and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 3121989, so far as it called for a bond under section 116(3) of the Code. The case shall proceed on its merit. Intimation be sent to the Court of the SubDivisional Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, District Patiala.

JUDGMENT accordingly.