Kulwant Singh vs State of Punjab

Alok Singh, J.—This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 65, dated 26.05.2008, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Nawanshahr (now Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar).

The brief facts of the present case are that Petitioner was facing trial pursuant to the FIR No. 65 dated 26.05.2008, however, Petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court on 22.03.2011 because Petitioner had gone to Gujarat where he fell sick and was admitted in hospital and remained under treatment. Learned Trial Court marked absent of the Petitioner and issued warrant of arrest on 22.03.2011.

Petition seeking anticipatory bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure can be moved only when offences are non-bailable. Anticipatory bail application is not maintainable for bailable offences.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued that since on 22.03.2011 arrest warrants were issued against the Petitioner for the absence of the Petitioner, therefore, application seeking anticipatory bail is maintainable. Learned Counsel has further argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar has entertained the petition for anticipatory bail and has dismissed the same on merits, therefore, present petition seeking anticipatory bail is maintainable. Learned Counsel further states that now case is fixed for 04.05.2011 before the learned Trial Court.

I do not agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. First of all, learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, ought not to have been entertained anticipatory bail application for bailable offences. Moreover, as per the dictum of this Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh Chhabra v. State of Punjab and Anr. Crl. Misc. No. M-770 of 2011, decided on 01.02.2011, Petitioner should have appeared before the Trial Court and sought regular bail from the Trial Court explaining sufficient reason for not appearing on the date fixed.

Present petition is dismissed. However, Petitioner shall be at liberty to appear before the learned Trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 04.05.2011 and can move a proper application explaining sufficient reason for not appearing on the date fixed. In the event of moving such application, the same shall be decided by the learned Trial Court at its own merit in accordance with law without any undue delay in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Bhupinder Singh Chhabra (supra).

A copy of the order be given to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner under the signatures of Bench Secretary.