The High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding that the petitioner's evasion of legal process as a proclaimed offender made custodial interrogation necessary for the investigation.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No. M-16773 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-16773 of 2010 Date of decision : 07.07.2010
Jagdeep Singh
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab
....Respondent
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against the petitioner vide FIR No.149 dated 05.06.2008 under Sections 420, 468, 467, 471 & 120-B IPC and Section 12 of Passport Act at Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was out of the country when he was declared proclaimed offender and thus, he never intentionally wanted to defeat the process of law.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, submits that petitioner has two passports in different names and information in this regard was received from Hong Kong Immigration Authority. According to him, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for taking the investigation to its logical end.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is evident that petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender
Criminal Misc. No. M-16773 of 2010
2
on 11.05.2009 and has been evading the process of law. In view of the allegations levelled against him, the investigating agency may require his custodial interrogation.
In view of above, no case is made out for extending the
concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed. July 07, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a petitioner alleged of evading legal process as a proclaimed offender.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jagdeep Singh
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
