Parminder Singh Dhillon vs State of Punjab

M.M. Punchhi, J.—This petition for anticipatory bail preferred by Parminder Singh Dhillon of Samrala has arisen in the following manner:

The Petitioner, as it appears, is a liquor licensee at Samrala. Suggestedly, his objectionable activities styled as ''opium smuggling etc. engaged the attention of the local police. Apprehensive that he would be arrested, he approached this Court by way of Criminal Misc. No. 5617 of 1984 in September, 1984 for pre-arrest bail. Inter alia, he averted therein that his 32. Webley Scatt revolver bearing license No. 474/8 Samrala had illegally been taken away by Shri Anup Singh Minhas, DSP, on September 21, 1984, during the course of a raid conducted by him on his house in his absence. On notice being issued to the Advocate-General, Punjab, the petition was rendered infructuous on account of the Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, making a candid statement on September 28, 1984, that the Petitioner was not required in any case by the officials of the Police Station, Samrala, and that in case he was so required he shall be given two days advance notice.

It appears that in November, 1984, the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, was moved to cancel the arms license of the Petitioner, as allegedly he was involved in a number of cases. Show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner by the District Magistrate on March 5, 1985. But simultaneously the license of the Petitioner was suspended. The Petitioner,--vide'' his reply dated March 12, 1985, infer alia, pleaded that no case under the Opium Act was pending against him and the one u/s 224, Indian Penal Code, which was pending in a Court was false and baseless. It was further pleaded by him that local DSP Shri Anup Singh Minhas being inimical towards him, had illegally sanatched away his revolver since September 21, 1984, and that a complaint filed by him was pending in the Court of Shri M. L. Malhotra, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala. He pleaded for the notice of cancellation to be withdrawn.

On April 8, 1985, he sought permission of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, to deposit his license and again reiterated his allegation that his licensed weapon had been taken away by Shri Anup Singh Minhas on September 21, 1984. On April 8, 1985, the District Magistrate passed an order that when the case against the Petitioner gets decided, he should file a copy before him and till then the proceedings to remain pending. These particulars are available from the file of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana, placed before me for perusal by the Deputy Advocate-General.

On the suspension, of the arms licence, the police registered a case u/s 25 of the Arms Act against the Petitioner on April 15, 1985--vide F.I.R. No. 81 of 1985 Police Station, Samrala. It is maintained by the State that on the suspension of the license of the Petitioner pertaining to his .32 revolver, the possession of the revolver with him henceforth would attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Arms Act. For the reason the police made an effort to arrest the Petitioner, but he approached this Court by means of the present petition and obtained stay of his arrest as an interim measure. In the petition, however, the Petitioner did not, and perhaps could not, state as to what offence he had Committed for which the police wanted him. However, when notice went to the Advocate-General, Punjab, and he caused appearance, a statement was made by the Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, before this Court on April 22, 1985, apprising the exact position. The Petitioner''s counsel then made a statement thereafter that since the revolver had been taken away by Anup Singh Minnas, DSP on September 21, 1984 as maintained by the Petitioner throughout, the Petitioner was not in possession of any revolver and hence was not guilty of commission of any offence. He was required to file an affidavit in that regard and that affidavit has been placed on file. Additionally, the Petitioner''s counsel maintained that when the District Magistrate was apprised of the revolver having been taken away in proceedings for cancellation of the license, he had undertaken to look into the matter. However, from the file it appears that there is no such specific undertaking, but in the proceedings for cancellation of license this aspect is inherent in it and the District Magistrate cannot overlook this fact, more so when a criminal complaint in that regard is pending in the Court of Shri M. L. Malhotra, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Samrala. Seemingly, the District Magistrate has not specifically undertaken to look into this aspect of the matter because the matter is sub judice, and he rightly has been discreet in that regard. But to say that he has nothing to do with the matter would be begging the question.

Offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act is triable by a Special Court established under the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984. Section 15(4) thereof bars the jurisdiction of Courts to grant anticipatory bail u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure. As suggested by the learned Deputy Advocate-General, Punjab, this Court is impeded from granting any relief to the Petitioner and it is pleaded that this petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. At the same time, it is undisputed that the District Magistrate has not so far granted any sanction to prosecute the . Petitioner, which sanction would mandatorily be required, as is clear from the provisions of Section 39 of the Arms Act.

This obviously is a coiled situation. In the absence of the sanction from the District Magistrate, no prosecution can be launched against the Petitioner. The District Magistrate has kept the matter pending before him for he perhaps wishes to wait for the outcome of the criminal litigation. Does it mean that the Petitioner must be arrested in all events, suffer some imprisonment and then to plead before the Special Court for bail, this Court wringing its hands in not coming to his rescue? I should think in the negative. Therefore, to pave the way, the Petitioner has surrendered to this Court and I order his immediate arrest for the offence allegedly committed by him. And being in custody present before me, in exercise of my powers u/s 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, I order his bail despite opposition by the State, for I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the Petitioner so far is not guilty of such offence and if released on bail is not likely to commit such an offence while on bail. I am further satisfied that the afore-circumstances are by themselves sufficient and exceptional with-in the meaning of Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, to grant the Petitioner bail. Let him execute bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar for appearance before the Special Court, in case prosecution is launched against him. This petition is allowed in these terms.