The court dismissed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., holding the petition devoid of merit because a detailed order had previously rejected it and the allegations involved serious loss causing the need for custodial interrogation. The coordinate bench's interim order was found insufficient.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-17788 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-17788 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.7.2010
Salil Sondhi @ Babbal ...Petitioner
Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 13A/3/67 of Punjab Gambling Act, 1867 and Section 420 IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has neither cheated any person nor caused loss to the complainant. He is, thus, not liable to be arrested pursuant to the FIR. This apart, the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to some business rivalry with the complainant. Learned counsel has referred to an ad-interim order passed in the case of a similarly placed accused to contend that in view of same, the petitioner is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It appears that earlier a pre-arrest bail application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by a detailed order on June 01, 2010.
Crl. Misc. No. M-17788 of 2010 2
The operative part of the said order reads thus:
“It is evident that petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and is alleged to have duped various people of their money through the gambling house. As regards argument of learned counsel regarding lack of evidence, investigation of the matter is still in progress. In case petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail, investigation is likely to be hampered. There appears to be no ground to extend the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit.
Dismissed.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how this second petition seeking the same relief (pre-arrest bail) is maintainable. He has merely relied upon an interim order dated June 09, 2010, passed by a coordinate bench of this court in case of a co-accused. However, same cannot help the petitioner as his petition for pre-arrest bail had already been dismissed by a detailed order on June 01, 2010. This apart, allegations against the petitioner are serious as he is alleged to be running a gambling house in Amritsar and collecting money from various people including the complainant. Due to gambling activities, loss of lacs of rupees was caused to various persons. The investigating agency, thus, may require custodial interrogation of the petitioner to take the investigation to its logical end. I am, thus, of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of merit.
Dismissed.
2.7.2010 'rajpal'
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petition for pre-arrest bail is maintainable where a similar petition was earlier dismissed by a detailed order.
Whether a coordinate bench's interim order in a similar case supports fresh admissions of pre-arrest bail after a detailed rejection.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Salil Sondhi @ Babbal
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
