Allowed

Vinod Sehgal v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Aug 2012CRM-M/13364/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addressed three petitions for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed by a sleepiing director accused of cheque bounce. The court distinguished a prior High Court ruling by noting the petitioner had lawful bail and only turned fugitive due to illness, making Section 438 maintainable. The court allowed bail and made interim orders absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; orders granting interim anticipatory bail made absolute.

Vinod Sehgal Vs State of Punjab — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No.M-13364 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-13382 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-13383 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-13364 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 23^rd , 2012

Vinod Sehgal

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

2. Criminal Misc. No. M-13382 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 23^rd , 2012

Vinod Sehgal

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶15

.... Respondents

¶16

3. Criminal Misc. No. M-13383 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 23^rd , 2012

Vinod Sehgal

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

¶21

.... Respondents

¶22

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶23

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶24

2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶25

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶26

Crl. Misc. No.M-13364 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-13382 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-13383 of 2012

¶27

¶28

Present Mr. Raju Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶29

Mrs. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for the State.

¶30

Mr. M.S.Joshi, Advocate, for respondent no.2.

¶31

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶32

Vinod Sehgal, the petitioner has brought the above mentioned three petitions for pre-arrest bail in three complaint cases titled as M/s Guru Nanak Fero Alloys Vs. M/s A.R.Alloys and others pending against the petitioner for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act) in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a sleeping Director of M/s A.R.Alloys, accused No.1. According to him, he was granted bail in the above said complaint cases. According to him, due to ill health, the petitioner became restless and upset. He has further submitted that he had some discord with his son Sutikshan Sehgal who along with others was looking after the business of the company. According to him, without telling any body, the petitioner went to Delhi for treatment, but as his condition worsened, he went to his younger son to Toronto in order to get better treatment. He has further claimed that he, during this period, had no contact with his son and the son of the petitioner, therefore, could not inform the trial court about the same in time. He has submitted that now the court has

¶34

Crl. Misc. No.M-13364 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-13382 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-13383 of 2012

¶35

¶36

issued coercive process to secure the presence of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner is also a senior citizen, aged about 64 years and is suffering from severe cervical pain and chest infection on account of which, he was unable to devote time to the business activities of the company.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had no intention to abscond. According to him, he left India for Toronto on a return ticket and, therefore, it cannot be said that he intentionally absented himself from hearing of the case. He has drawn my attention in this regard to Annexure P1, a return ticket from New Delhi to Toronto via Abu Dhabi.

¶38

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that the petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in the present situation. According to him, section 438 Cr.P.C. does not cover the situation where the accused has been granted bail in the case and warrants of arrest have been issued against him on his absence from hearing of the case. He has drawn my attention to a decision of Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Yogendra Singh Vs. State of M.P. through P.S., 2000 (1) MPHT 409 , where it is laid down that although, a person who was already on bail and against whom warrants of arrest had been issued on his failure to appear before the trial court, would have apprehension of arrest as is required under section 438 Cr.P.C., yet the accused in this situation would not be entitled to file an application for anticipatory bail because he is already on bail or anticipatory bail in respect of the accusation of non-bailable offence. It is

¶39

Crl. Misc. No.M-13364 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-13382 of 2012 Crl. Misc. No.M-13383 of 2012

¶40

¶41

further laid down that in such a situation, the accused shall have to take steps for recall of the warrants.

¶42

The first aspect, which distinguishes the facts of the present case with the facts of the reported case, is that the offence for which the petitioner was granted bail in the present case by the trial court has been a bailable offence. It had become non-bailable on the petitioner absenting from the proceedings of the case and the court issued warrants of arrest against him. So, the nature of the offence has changed by the non-appearance of the accused before the court and now he apprehends his arrest or detention in the said case even if he appears before the trial court with a prayer for enlarging him on bail. It also cannot be lost sight of that a Magistrate has no power to recall the order passed by him. It is also to be kept in mind that while issuing notice of motion on 8.5.2012, the petitioner had been ordered to appear before the trial court and in compliance with the terms of the said order, the petitioner has appeared before the trial court and has been admitted to interim bail. So, for all these reasons, I find the petition to be maintainable and the petitioner to be entitled to the concession of bail. The petitions are, consequently, allowed and the orders dated 8.5.2012 passed by this court granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the above mentioned three petitions, are made absolute.

¶43

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶44

August 23^rd , 2012 som

Vinod Sehgal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Sehgal 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

Amarjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Parveen Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Raj Bahadur Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Vinod Sehgal Vs State of Punjab

Vinod Sehgal Vs State of Punjab