Swaran Singh vs State of Punjab

Sat Pal, J. (Oral)

This petition has been filed by Swaran Singh (petitioner herein) under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in the complaint case titled as Surinder Pal v. Swaran Singh and another for offences under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code pending in the court of Sh. K.C. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur.

As per averments made in the petition, Surinder Pal (respondent No. 2 herein) lodged First Information Report No. 65 of 15.5.1994 at Police Station Dhariwal under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report is regarding the murder of one Ghulla. It was alleged in the FIR that deceased Ghulla was last seen in the company of Swaran Singh. After making necessary investigation into this matter, the police filed report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate and it was stated in the report that the above mentioned FIR should be cancelled and necessary action should be taken against Surinder Pal for having lodged a false report.

It is further averred in this petition that said Surinder Pal thereafter filed a complaint in the court of Sh. K.C. Gupta, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurdaspur, under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code on 7.6.1994 against petitioner Swaran Singh and his son Preet Pal Singh. In the complaint it was alleged that Swaran Singh and his son Preet Pal Singh have committed the murder of Ghulla. After recording the statement of the complainant, Swaran Singh petitioner and his son Prithipal Singh have been summoned by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 302/34 IPC vide order dated 11.10.1995. After the said order was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner filed petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. 20592M of 1995 seeking anticipatory bail but his request for anticipatory bail was rejected vide order dated 14.12.1995 and the said petition was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed another petition bearing Crl.Misc. No. 10739M of 1996 which was disposed of vide order dated 6.8.1996. By this order the petitioner was directed to approach the learned Sessions Judge to seek relief of bail/anticipatory bail. It was, however, directed that the petitioner would not be arrested for a period of two weeks to enable him to approach the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge, however, rejected the request of anticipatory bail of the petitioner vide order dated 20.8.1996 on the ground that the request for anticipatory bail had already been declined by the High Court vide order dated 14.12.1995. Aggrieved by this order the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

This petition came up for hearing before this Bench on 26.8.1996 and notice was issued to the respondent. Meanwhile the arrest of the petitioner was stayed. Interim orders passed on 26.8.1996 have been extended from time to time.

Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the present case the complaint filed against the petitioner is totally false. He submits that the police has already filed cancellation report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Magistrate. He also submits that proceedings under Section 182 IPC have already been initiated against respondent No. 2 for having lodged a false complaint. He, therefore, contends that keeping in view the special circumstances of this case the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner should be confirmed.

Mr. Mann, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, however, submits that an order of anticipatory bail cannot continue till the end of trial of a case and the petitioner should approach the court of Sessions for regular bail. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in K.L. Verma v. State, 1997(1) Recent Criminal Reports 493 : 1996(7) Scale (SP) 20.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point with regard to grant of anticipatory bail came up for consideration before Hon''ble Supreme Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1996(1) SCC 667. In this case it was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that orders regarding grant of anticipatory bail should be of limited duration and court granting anticipatory bail should leave up to the regular court to deal with the matter after the investigation has made progress or the chargesheet is submitted. In the case of K.L. Verma (supra) it was again held by the apex Court that an order of anticipatory bail does not enure till the end of trial but it must be of limited duration as the regular Court cannot be bypassed. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner cannot continue till the disposal of the complaint filed by respondent No. 2. It is, however, not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has been summoned by the learned Magistrate who has got no jurisdiction to try the case under Section 302/34 IPC and he can only commit the petitioner to the Sessions Court for trial.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I direct the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court for grant of regular bail, in case the petitioner is committed by the learned Magistrate to the Sessions Court for trial under Section 302/34 IPC. Meanwhile, I direct the learned Magistrate to admit the petitioner on interim bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. This interim bail shall continue till the petitioner is committed to the court of Sessions Judge and further for a period of four weeks from the date of committal.

With this order, the petition stands disposed of.