Vishal Goel vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

Notice to the State.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. J.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State.

The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail. He became absent from the Court of the CJM, Fatehgarh Sahib, on 3.7.1998. According to the petitioner, he appeared before the learned C.J.M. on the same day but the learned C.J.M. did not withdraw the orders. Later, he had already issued the nonbailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Resultantly, the petitioner made an application on 3.7.1998 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib u/sec. 438, Cr.P.C. It was withdrawn on 4.7.1998 as it was not properly drafted. The petitioner, then moved an application u/sec. 438. Cr.P.C. after proper drafting on 4.7.1998 which has been declined vide the impugned order dated 14.7.1998 on the plea that the concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to those who disregard the courts.

A perusal of the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge indicates that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not rightly considered the provisions of section 438. Cr.P.C. Of courtse bail is a discretion but at the same time this discretion has to be exercised according to the well settled principles of law and not in a whimsical manner. Firstly, it was not proper on the part of the C.J.M. to issue nonbailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner. If at all, coercive methods were required to be adopted by the C.J.M. he ought to have adopted the coercive methods in the later part of the day as per the High Court Rules and JUDGMENTs. Accordingly to the petitioner he appeared before the learned C.J.M. In these circumstances, the learned C.J.M. should have allowed the petitioner to participate in the proceedings. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the learned C.J.M. could not withdraw the orders, then the impugned order dated 14.7.1998 has not been passed in the right perspective by taking into consideration that the accused had appeared before the C.J.M. on the same day. He made an application before the court and so much so on the next day appeared before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. All these steps taken by the petitioner, prima facie, indicated that there was no wilful default on the part of the petitioner. In these circumstances adopting coercive methods and disallowing the bail application of the petitioner that he may go inside the jail is against the recognised principles of law.

Resultantly, I direct the petitioner to appear before the learned C.J.M. on 29.7.1998. Directions are also given to the learned C.J.M. to withdraw the nonbailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner.