Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007
Date of decision : 10.11.2009
Amarinder Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Mr. M.L. Saggar and Mr. K.S.Nalwa, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
S. D. ANAND, J.
In this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., filed by Shri
Amarinder Singh ( a former Chief Minister of the State of Punjab), the
learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection to the very
maintainability of the petition as it purports to seek anticipatory bail which
is blanket in character and not related to any particular category of cases
and for an indefinite period of time.
The plea is resisted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner by making a clarificatory response to the effect
that petitioner is not seeking blanket anticipatory bail but is restricting
relief to a direction that the Investigating Agency shall give seven days
advance notice to the petitioner as and when it is decided to proceed
against him on a charge pertaining to abuse of power and misconduct in
the course of duty as the then Chief Minister of the State of Punjab.
Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -2-
****
Learned Senior Counsel further argues that the underlined
subjects of apprehended charge have been indicated by him in order to
preempt the plea that the grant of relief has to be fettered by the duly
noticed expectation of the charge. That plea, it is argued, stems from the
pleadings raised at the trial and also urged in the course of whatever
transpired at the earlier hearings of the case.
That the petitioner is a former Chief Minister of the State of
Punjab is beyond the pale of controversy. Likewise, it is also common
ground that he has already been allowed regular bail in case FIR No.5
dated 23.3.2007, Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. It is also
apparent from the material obtaining on the file that the relationship
between the petitioner and the present establishment is far from cordial.
The creases in their interse relationship are apparent from the various
newspaper clippings which have been placed on record. It is also common
ground, at the time of arguments before this Court, that the Investigating
Agency was initially contemplating search of the residential Palace of the
petitioner but proposal was dropped thereafter.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues that his
apprehension that he would be suddenly arrested and harassed stems
from the fact that his son (and also another relation) and all his associates
had been proceeded against and all of them had been able to obtain the
protection from this Court ( i.e. Punjab and Haryana High Court). It is
further argued that all that the petitioner is pleading is protection from
harassment which is likely to be caused on account of his sudden arrest.
He further states that petitioner is only requesting for few days notice in
case the Investigating Agency decides to proceed against him in a matter
pertaining to abuse of power and misconduct relatable to the period he
Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -3-
****
was holding the office of Chief Minister of the State of Punjab.
On a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings of the parties and
on appreciation of the material obtaining on the file, I feel that the limited
relief presently sought by the petitioner is in order. The grant thereof would
not impede the course of investigation of the Investigating Agencies in any
manner. At the same time, both the parties shall be able to have their say
before the competent Court of Law in the context of the decision by the
Investigating Agency to proceed against the petitioner in the indicated
category of litigation. The view obtained by the various Coordinate
Benches of this Court in Ram Chander Vs. State of Haryana 1986 (2)
Recent Criminal Reports (P&H) 561, Bhajan Lal and others Vs. State
of Haryana and others 1986 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (P&H) 515
and Criminal Miss. No.37266-M of 2002 (Hardeep Singh Vs. State of
Punjab) is fully supportive of this view of mine. Apart therefrom,
sustenance can also be drawn in the context from a judgment rendered by
Delhi High Court in K.N.Aggarwal Vs. State through C.B.I. 1999(2) RCR
Delhi 411. In that case, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K.Sabharwal (as His
Lordship then was) held that the grant or refusal an anticipatory bail plea is
a matter of discretion of Court and there are no inflexible rules governing
the grant thereof. It was further held that petitioner would be entitled to
bail if there is prima facie indication of a political vendetta. At the same
time, it was also held that the converse need not necessarily follow i.e. the
mere fact that political vendetta is prima facie not shown, by itself, shall not
be a ground to refuse anticipatory bail.
Even in Bharat Inder Singh Chahal Vs. State 2007(3) RCR
977 (relied upon by the learned State Counsel), all that the Apex Court had
held was that a blanket protection of arrest or grant of advance notice
Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -4-
****
before arrest should not be normally/generally afforded to an accused.
In the present case, however, it is not a blanket protection of
the above category. The relief would be available to the petitioner only in
cases which proceed on the allegation of abuse of power and misconduct
in the course of duty as the then Chief Minister of the State of Punjab.
Further, the order would be operative for a period of one year from the date
of this order. I am inclined to grant this order in view of the fact that rival
pleadings-related contentions of the parties do indicate that the
apprehensions in the mind of the petitioner may altogether not be
misplaced. It is, obviously, not for this Court to comment upon the
correctness or otherwise thereof.
The petition shall stand allowed to the extent that there shall
be a direction to the respondents that if the Investigating Agencies decide
to proceed against the petitioner on the allegations of abuse of power and
misconduct in the course of duty as the then Chief Minister of the State of
Punjab, they shall afford seven days notice to the petitioner to have
recourse to the law. The order would be operative for a period of one year
from the date of this order.
On point of fact, I have to make it clear that mere quotation of
the rival contentions of the parties shall not be deemed to be an expression
of opinion on the merits or otherwise thereof. The adjudicatory exercise in
the matter of validity or otherwise of rival contentions is in the exclusive
realm of competent Court of Law having jurisdiction to undertake it.
The following implications of the order can be safely culled out
from the above discussion:-
1. The plea for the grant of blanket bail has not been
pressed at the time of arguments before this Court. The
Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -5-****
relief sought has been restricted to seven days advance
notice if the Investigating Agencies of the State of
Punjab decide to proceed against the petitioner.
2. The order granted by this Court is to the effect that if
the Investigating Agencies of the State of Punjab decide
to proceed against the petitioner, they shall afford
seven days notice to the petitioner to have recourse to
the law.
3. The order would be complied with in the cases
pertaining to the allegations of abuse of power and
misconduct in the course of duty as the then Chief
Minister of the State of Punjab.
4. The currency of the order shall be for a period of one
year.
Disposed of accordingly.
November 10, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE