The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a second petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. holding it not maintainable due to a recent Apex Court judgment, characterising it as a misuse of process.
The petition is dismissed. Costs are remitted due to petitioner's poverty.
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-M- 17095 of 2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M- 17095 of 2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.6.2021
Mohd. Riaz
................Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
.................Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan
Present: Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. J.S. Ghuman, Deputy Advocate Advocate General, Punjab.
H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral)
Case taken up through video conferencing.
CRM-15384-2021
This is an application for pre-ponment of hearing in the
main petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which is fixed for 3.9.2021.
Heard.
The application stands accepted. The main petition is pre-poned and taken up today.
Main case.
This second petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., has been filed by petitioner – Mohd. Riaz, aged about 52 years, s/o Niaz Mohd., resident of village Sadrabad, Gurbaksh
BANITA CHUGH 2021.06.23 12:21 I agree to specified portions of this document
CRM-M- 17095 of 2021 -2-
Chakki, Malerkotla, District Sangrur, being accused in case FIR No. 148 dated 27.10.2016 for offences under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City -I, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.
The first petition had been dismissed vide order dated 21.2.2017, passed in CRM-M-126 of 2017. This second petition is not maintainable in view of observations made by the Apex Court in judgment dated 28.1.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal No. of 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 213 of 2001, titled as G.R. Ananda Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another . This is rather misuse of the process of law and amounts to wasting precious time of the Court.
The petition deserves to be dismissed with costs, but on account of the regrets being offered by learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the petitioner is a very poor person, I refrain from imposing costs upon the petitioner.
As such the petition stands dismissed.
( H.S. Madaan ) 23.6.2021 Judge chugh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No
Whether reportable Yes / No
BANITA CHUGH 2021.06.23 12:21 I agree to specified portions of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable following the Apex Court judgment in G.R. Ananda Babu.
Whether the petition, if maintainable, should be allowed or dismissed in the facts of the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G.R. Ananda Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and anotherRelied on¶24
Criminal Appeal No. 2021 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 213 of 2001, G.R. Ananda Babu vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and another, judgment dated 28.1.2021
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Riaz
State of Punjab
H. S. Madaan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
