Dismissed

Gautam Patel v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Jul 2018CRM-M/28417/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses two petitions for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that petitioners, already arrested and released on transit bail who failed to surrender and comply with conditions, were not entitled to arrest anticipatory bail and must approach the local court for regular bail instead.

What did the court decide?

Petitions for anticipatory bail dismissed.

Gautam Patel Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-28417 of 2018 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision:19.7.2018

Gautam Patel

...Petitioner v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent ....

(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-28398 of 2018 (O&M)

Rajiv Indur Dadlani

...Petitioner v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent ....

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶14

.....

¶15

Present: Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anurag Arora and Ms. Rubina Virmani, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶16

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶17

Mr. J.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sonpreet S. Brar Advocate for the complainant.

¶18

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶19

This order will dispose of the above mentioned two petitions

¶20

filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR

¶21

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-28417 of 2018 (O&M) etc. [2]

¶23

No.114 dated 23.5.2018 registered for the offence under Section 420 IPC (Annexure-P.1) at Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, District Bathinda and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

¶24

Notice of motion was issued in these cases.

¶25

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and Mr. J.S. Bedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sonpreet S. Brar, Advocate has appeared for the complainant and contested these petitions.

¶26

I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and learned senior counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record.

¶27

In FIR No.114 dated 23.5.2018, non-bailable warrants were issued admittedly by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda and both the petitioners have been arrested and produced before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4^th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai, and they were released on transit bail with the directions to the petitioners to surrender before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, on furnishing of P.R. bond of Rs.50,000/- each with cash security of Rs.2,00,000/- each. They were directed to attend the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda (Punjab) on or before 11.7.2018 along with other conditions.

¶28

It is admitted fact that the petitioners instead of appearing before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, in compliance of the

¶29

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-28417 of 2018 (O&M) etc. [3]

¶31

order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4^th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai, filed these petitions seeking anticipatory bail. It is admitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4^th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai, was not complied with by both the petitioners. It is also on the record that neither any application seeking regular bail nor any application seeking anticipatory bail have been filed by the petitioners before the Court at Bathinda. Rather, directly these petitions have been filed before this Court at Chandigarh.

¶32

Keeping in view the admitted fact that the petitioners have already been arrested in the present FIR and were only granted transit bail for seven days, therefore, they cannot file these petitions for anticipatory bail. Rather, they have to approach the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, by complying with the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4^th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai, to surrender before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and ask for the regular bail.

¶33

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued in length for grant of anticipatory bail but these petitions are not maintainable after the arrest of the present petitioners in the present case and after they have been released on transit bail. Further more, the conduct of the petitioners also disentitle them for grant of discretionary relief of anticipatory bail as they have not complied with the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4^th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai, and violated the terms and conditions of the transit bail.

¶34

Therefore, in view of the above facts, I find that these

¶35

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

Cr. Misc. Nos.M-28417 of 2018 (O&M) etc. [4]

¶37

petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the

¶38

these petitions are dismissed.

¶39

July 19, 2018. (Inderjit Singh) Judge

¶40

hsp

¶41

NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶42

Harpal Singh Parmar 2018.07.21 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Gautam Patel v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam Patel 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Sharma Vs State of Haryana & Another

Ved Parkash Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amrik Singh Vs Ashok Kumar Pathria

Kamaljit Kaur @ Kalamjit Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab

Pawan Kumar and Anr. Vs a. Venu Prasad and Ors.

Kehar Singh Vs Navita Puri