Addl Sessions Judge treating regular bail plea as anticipatory bail petition raises serious concern: P&H HC while granting regular bail to accused

feature-top

Read Order: Sukhchain Singh @ Chaini v.  State of Punjab

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 24,  2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed its concern over a bail matter in which the petitioner’s application for grant regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was treated as an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot who dismissed the said application by his July 2021 order. This dismissal was recorded despite the petitioner making specific pleading in his application about him being in judicial custody. 

The Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri stated that the said order raised serious concern and thus the Court sent the case file to the concerned Administrative Judge of Faridkot for information and for taking further necessary action if so required, in accordance with law.

This matter came to light when the High Court was dealing with a petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case emanating from an FIR under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC. The petitioner and his co-accused allegedly took money for conducting a committee and did return the same to the complainant. Initially, the petitioner approached the Sessions Court for regular bail, but his application was dismissed (while it was being considered to be one for grant of anticipatory bail) by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner was in custody for more than nine months, the challan was presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the charges were also framed. Moreover, he contended that at most the case involved a dispute of civil liability if any and since the investigation was already complete and no recovery was to be effected from the petitioner, the petitioner made a case for grant of regular bail. 

In one of its earlier hearings, it came to the Court’s notice that the petitioner was in custody since March 2021 while the lower Court decided his application for grant of anticipatory bail on merits in July 2021, and thus the Court sought a report from the District & Sessions Judge, Faridkot on how anticipatory bail was decided on merits when the petitioner was already in custody much prior to the same. 

From the report submitted it was gathered that the petitioner in fact filed a regular bail application with a specific pleading that he was already in judicial custody in the case. The Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot dismissed the bail application while considering the same as having been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Further, the report stated that without giving any legally justifiable reason in passing the order, the Addl. Sessions Judge stated that this mistake happened due to a rush of work and he assured not to repeat the same. 

Terming it a matter of ‘serious concern’ the court referred it to the Administration Judge of Faridkot. 

Regarding the regular bail application before it, the Court observed that undoubtedly the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was already presented, and charges were framed. Further, it was noted that it was not the case of the State that some recovery was to be effected from the petitioner and that the petitioner would influence any witness or tamper with the evidence or flee from justice if released on bail. 

Therefore, observing that the petitioner was facing incarceration since March, 2021 , the Court allowed the petition for grant of bail to the petitioner. 

Add a Comment