CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Manjit Singh Sandhu vs State of Punjab and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 January 2011 · Citation: (2011) 3 RCR(Criminal) 105

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 · Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 — Section 36
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-1065 of 2011 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 318 words

Alok Singh, J.—This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case Criminal Complaint No. 45/2 dated 02.03.2002, "Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Ludhiana (PUDA) v. Kuldeep Singh and Ors., pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, u/s 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2.

Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was on the regular bail. However, on 12.05.2010, the petitioner has moved an application seeking exemption from personal appearance, which was allowed only for 12.05.2010. However, thereafter, petitioner did not appear before the Court. Accordingly, Court has issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner.

3.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :-

438.

Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest - (1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely.

xxx xxx xxx

4.

From the perusal of Section 438 of the Code, it can safely be held that application u/s 438 of the Code can only be moved when a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of non-bailable offence.

5.

Undisputedly, offence u/s 36 of the Act is bailable offence. In a bailable offence, application seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

6.

Dismissed.

7.

However, it is provided that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 25.01.2011 and shall move an application seeking bail from the Trial Court, which shall be heard and decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law on the same day.