This petition sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the application, noting the petitioner failed to appear before the investigating officer as directed and absconded in a related FIR.
The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed, and the interim order previously granted to the petitioner is vacated.
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.
CRM No.M-28784 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 28784 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 15, 2013.
Jatinder Singh Dua
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
U.T. Chandigarh.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl.PP, U.T.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, Advocate, for the complainant.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.286 dated 10.08.2012, under Sections 380/420/467/468/471 IPC, registered at police station Sector 11, Chandigarh.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh dismissing bail application filed by
CRM No.M-28784 of 2012
2
the petitioner.
This Court while issuing notice of motion on 17.09.2012 had directed the petitioner to join the investigation and in case of his arrest, he was ordered to be released on interim bail by the Arresting Officer to his satisfaction subject to compliance of conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Though petitioner initially appeared before the investigating officer pursuant to the said order and however, thereafter he stopped appearing before the Investigating Officer after 12.12.2012. He was specifically directed by this Court vide order dated 03.05.2013 to appear before the Investigating Officer on 10.05.2013 at 10.00 AM and thereafter, as and when directed by the Investigating Officer and however, he failed to appear.
It has been brought to my notice by learned counsel for respondent-U.T. as well as by learned counsel for the complainant that in another FIR i.e. FIR no.69 dated 19.04.2012 reference of which has also been given in this FIR, bail application of petitioner-accused was dismissed by this Court. It is further contended that anticipatory bail application of co-accused in FIR no.69 dated 19.04.2012 was also dismissed by this Court and co-accused approached Hon'ble Apex Court and the order dismissing bail application of co-accused was also upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court. It is further submitted that petitioner is now absconding even in FIR no.69 dated 19.04.2012 as well as in this FIR.
Hence, in view of these facts, petitioner-accused is not entitled for extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
CRM No.M-28784 of 2012
3
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant application for anticipatory bail filed by Jatinder Singh Dua is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of merit.
Interim order dated 17.09.2012 already granted in his favour
stands vacated.
May 15, 2013. ‘om’
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail after failing to comply with court orders to join investigation.
Whether the petitioner's conduct in another FIR justifies rejection of the current bail application.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jatinder Singh Dua
U.T. Chandigarh
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
