Major Singh vs State of Punjab

M.M. Singh Bedi, J.—This order will dispose of a petition for grant of pre-arrest bail filed by husband and wife who are facing trial since the year 2010. They had absented four times in a duration of four months in the year 2012 and also absented on April 27, 2013.

Counsel for the petitioners relying upon record of Government Medical College and Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, submits that on May 15, 2013 on account of burn injuries suffered by petitioner No. 2, it was not possible for her to appear on the dates fixed before the trial Court after April 27, 2013.

I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case and appreciated the previous record of the petitioners and I am of the opinion that repeated absence has not only caused delay in the adjudication of the matter but has also caused harassment to the Court and the witnesses of the complainant side. Next date of hearing before the trial Court is stated to be August 18, 2014.

So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, she being a lady and having shown sufficient cause for non-appearance during the period of absence after April 27, 2013 can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. It is ordered that in case petitioner No. 2 Nirmal Kaur puts in appearance before the trial Court on August 18, 2014, she will be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, taking into consideration his previous record, I do not find any ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to petitioner No. 1 Major Singh but in the interest of expeditious disposal of the trial and to ensure that petitioner No. 1 does not absent himself without intimation to the Court casually, it is ordered that petitioner will surrender before the trial Court on August 16, 2014 and file an application for bail. Application filed by him for bail will be allowed on August 18, 2014 by issuing notice to the State and he would be released on August 18, 2014. It will be open to the trial Court to send petitioner No. 1 in judicial custody from August 16, 2014 to August 18, 2014.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that in view of petitioner No. 1 having appeared before the trial Court pursuant to the interim orders, he should be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.

I have considered the said contention. Mere appearance before the trial Court pursuant to the interim orders ipso facto does not confer a legal right on an accused to seek concession of bail as a matter of right. An interim order is always subject to the final decision. No concession can be given to petitioner No. 1 Major Singh for having complied with the interim order.

Disposed of.