Tejinder Singh vs State of Haryana

Rajan Gupta, J.—By this order, I intend to dispose of two petitions, i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. M-26511 & M-27640 of 2008, as the petitioners therein have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in one and the same FIR No. 431 dated 24.9.2008 u/s 306 IPC registered at Police Station City Yamuna Nagar.

Counsel for the petitioners contends that in the entire FIR no role has been attributed to the petitioners and there is only an oblique reference to them.

Counsel for the State, however, opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioners have been named by the deceased as well as her husband. According to him, the deceased as well as her husband have stated that the petitioners were harassing and blackmailing her, due to which she was forced to commit suicide.

The learned State counsel ( on instructions from ASI Gurmel Singh, who is present in Court) further submits that the investigation in this case is almost complete and challan is likely to be presented before the Court.

Counsel for the complainant has adopted the arguments raised by the State counsel. Additionally, he has relied upon a judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Adri Dharan Das Vs. State of West Bengal, to contend that the order of anticipatory bail should enure only till filing of the challan, whereafter the accused should submit before the trial Court and seek regular bail. The relevant para (10) of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below :

In Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, , it was observed as follows :

Anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest in non- bailable cases, but that does not mean that the regular court, which is to try the offender, is sought to be bypassed and that is the reason why the High Court very rightly fixed the outer date for the continuance of the bail and on the date of its expiry directed the petitioner to move the regular court for bail. That is the correct procedure to follow because it must be realised that when the Court of Session or the High Court is granting anticipatory bail, it is granted at a stage when the investigation is incomplete and, therefore, it is not informed about the nature of evidence against the alleged offender. It is, therefore, necessary that such anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration only and ordinarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration the court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted.

In view of the submission made by State counsel that the investigation in this case is almost over and challan is likely to be presented before the court, it is evident that the petitioners are no longer required for custodial interrogation. Accordingly, they deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions envisaged u/s 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The anticipatory bail is, however, granted upto the date of presentation of the challan, whereafter the petitioners would be required to seek regular bail from the trial Court in accordance with law.

Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.