Allowed

Rajinder Singh Cheema v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Aug 2011CRM-M/13574/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of three petitions for pre-arrest bail in corruption and criminal cases. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre regarding the duration of bail, the single-judge bench made the earlier interim anticipatory bail orders absolute and dismissed the matters.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail orders were made absolute; petitions were disposed of in favor of the petitioners.

Rajinder Singh Cheema Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CRM-M-13574 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-14768 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-14769 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND *****	HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
	*CRM-M-13574 of 2011 (O&M)* *Date of Decision:16.08.2011*
Rajinder Singh Cheema	. . .Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab *****	. . . Respondent
	*CRM-M-14768 of 2011 (O&M)*
	*Date of Decision:16.08.2011*
Balwant Singh Gill	. . .Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab	. . . Respondent
*****
	*CRM-M-14769 of 2011 (O&M)*
	*Date of Decision:16.08.2011*
Dalip Kumar Bedi	. . .Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab	. . . Respondent
*********
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKES *********	H KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

¶4

Mr.A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab.

¶5

¶6

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL)

¶7

This order shall dispose of three petitions namely, CRM-M-13574 of 2011 titled as “Rajinder Singh Cheema Versus State of Punjab” , CRM-M-14768

¶8

CRM-M-13574 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-14768 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-14769 of 2011 (O&M)

¶9

- 2 -

¶10

of 2011 titled as “Balwant Singh Gill Versus State of Punjab” and CRM-M14769 of 2011 titled as “Dalip Kumar Bedi Versus State of Punjab” .

¶11

In all the aforesaid petitions, petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in cases registered vide FIR No.105 dated 02.04.1997 under Sections 7 & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and Sections 217, 218, 201, 419, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC) at Police Station Sadar, District Ludhiana.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that the petitioner Rajinder Singh Cheema had applied for anticipatory bail by way of CRM-8523-M of 1997 in which interim order was passed on 23.4.1997 to the following effect: “Present: Mr.R.S. Cheema, Sr. Advocate with Mr.D.P.Singh, Advocate.

¶13

Crl. Misc. 8524 of 1997 for exemption from filing certified copies is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests for permission for adding Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 after the list of sections of the Indian Penal Code mentioned in the petition. Permission granted. Amendment be carried out today.

¶15

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab for 28.5.1997.

¶16

In the meantime, it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner in connection with FIR No.105 dated 2.4.1997, Police Station, Sadar Ludhiana under Sections 201/217/218/419/420 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 7 and 13 of the PC Act, he be released on bail by the police on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.15,000 with one surety in the like amount.

¶17

It would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for police remand if

¶18

CRM-M-13574 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-14768 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-14769 of 2011 (O&M)

¶19

- 3 -

¶20

he considers it proper and the learned Magistrate/Special Judge would decide it on merits.

¶21

The petitioner shall cooperate with the police and remain present in the police station whenever so required by the police with prior notice to him in writing.

¶22

If the petitioner goes out from the place of his residence for more than two days, he shall inform the police station in advance in writing regarding the same.”

¶23

Thereafter on 28.5.1997, following order was passed:

¶24

“Heard.

¶25

In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, this is not a case where anticipatory bail should be denied to the petitioner.

¶26

This petition, is, therefore, allowed. The order of interim anticipatory bail dated April 23, 1997 is made absolute for a period of 90 days from today along with same terms and conditions.”

¶27

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that identical orders were passed in other two cases as well. He further submits that after investigation the police authorities have found the petitioners innocent and decided to get them discharged from the Court. However, after 14 years the prosecution has now filed the challan before the Special Judge, Ludhiana on 22.3.2011 behind the back of the petitioner(s). He further submits that the anxiety to file the present bail applications has arisen because of the fact that while confirming the anticipatory bail on 28.5.1997 it was observed by this Court that the interim anticipatory bail shall be made absolute for a period of 90 days. He further submits that recently Supreme Court in the case of “Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharshtra and others: 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 126, has held that anticipatory bail granted by Court shall continue till the end of trial and the accused is not required to surrender and apply for a regular

¶28

CRM-M-13574 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-14768 of 2011 (O&M) CRM-M-14769 of 2011 (O&M)

¶29

- 4 -

¶30

bail. He further submits that in terms of order passed by this Court dated 10.5.2011 in CRM-M-13574 of 2011 and order dated 13.5.2011 in CRM-M-14768 & 14769 of 2011, the petitioner(s) had already appeared before the Court below and have been released on bail. In this regard, he had produced on record order dated 30.5.2011 indicating the bail having been granted by the learned trial Court.

¶31

Learned counsel for the State, however, filed status report in all the three petitions and has submitted that they have already presented the challan.

¶32

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that the petitioners have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court but for limited period which is no more the good law in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (Supra), the orders dated 10.5.2011 and 13.5.2011 respectively are hereby made absolute.

¶33

Petitions stands disposed of.

¶34

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of another connected

¶35

case.

¶36

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 16, 2011 JUDGE Vivek

Rajinder Singh Cheema v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Singh Cheema v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shukla Khosla Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Anr.

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rakesh Kadian and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Balwant Singh Gill Vs State of Punjab

Dalip Kumar Bedi Vs State of Punjab