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
12 paragraphs · 391 wordsS.S. Sudhalkar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG assisted by Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Advocate.
The learned AAG has argued that the petitioner has not filed a petition for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court and, therefore, he cannot come directly to this Court. However, on reading Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be laid down that applying to the Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail should be a condition precedent for filing such an application to this Court. Therefore, this argument cannot be accepted.
The learned Advocate Mr. Sidhu has argued that the petitioner has forged the power of attorney and he should not be given the benefit of bail. However, in case anticipatory bail is granted with the conditions mentioned below, the interests of the prosecution/investigation will not be hampered. Therefore, there appears to be no reason for rejecting the anticipatory bail application when conditions are to be imposed for the same.
This petition is, therefore, allowed.
It is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 11 dated 27.2.1997 of Police Station Goraya District Jalandhar, for the offences under Sections 420/467/468 and 471IPC he be released on bail by the police on his furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 40,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
It would be open to the investigating officer to file an application for police remand if he considers it proper and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits.
The petitioner shall cooperate with the police and remain present in the police station whenever so required by the police with prior notice to him in writing.
If the petitioner goes out from the place of his residence for more than two days, he shall inform the Police Station in advance in writing regarding the same.
This order shall remain in force for a period of 90 days from today. If the petitioner is not arrested during this period, he is at liberty to approach this Court for extension.
The petitioner shall remain at police station Goraya, District Jalandhar on 15.4.1997 at 10 a.m. initially.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner undertakes that in case an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail is filed, he will accept the notice thereof.