AMAR BHARTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment is all dispose of two petitions, namely Criminal Misc (Main) No. 523 of 1980 and Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 527 of 1980.

(2.) The petitioner in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 523 of 1980, i.e. Pritam Singh, is the proprietor of M/s. Navyug Press, Pleasure Garden Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and the petitioner in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 527 of 1980, i.e. Amar Bharti, is a practitioner in Homoeopathic medicines and also writes books in Punjabi besides doing translation of books from other languages to Punjabi on behalf of the National Boo Trust and Sahitya Academy. One Sardar Kapur Singh an ex-ICS Officer approached the petitioner Pritam Singh for the printing of second enlarged edition of his book titled "Sachi Saki" in Gurmukhi script. It is alleged that in this connection he gave some photographs to be published in the said edition The petitioner published another book Sat Gur Tisaka Haue in which its author Amar Bharti quoted a passage from an article appearing in Nawan Hindustan of Sept. 6, 1965, containing the views of the complainant Sardar Kapur Singh in praise of Baba Ram Singh and with reference to that article, also published the photograph of Sardar Kaur Singh.

(3.) Sardar Kapur Singh made a complaint to the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, to register a case against the said petitioners Pritam Singh and Amar Bharti at Ludhiana under Sections 406/500/504 I.P.C. and 6 of the Copyrights Act upon the allegation that the book "Sat Gur Tiska Nauo" was exposed for sale in Ludhiana in which the photographs supplied as aforesaid by the complainant were misused. The petitioners who are residents of Delhi, have moved the two applications (Crl. Misc (Main) No. 523 and 527 of 1980), for anticipatory bail. These applications are not opposed on merits by the State of Punjab but they contend that this court has no jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in cases arising outside its jurisdiction. The case was registered in Punjab and no bail could be granted by the Delhi High Court. Reliance is placed upon an order of A.B. Rohatgi, J., made in Criminal Misc (Main) No. 361 of 1980, on Aug. 11, 198n in which Shri Balraj Trikha had applied for anticipatory bail for an offence alleged to have been committed in Manipur. The learned judge observed that upon the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition, it appears that courts in Manipur are the courts of competent jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Sections 6, 7, 177 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amply show this He, therefore, considered that the petitioner should apply to an appropriate court for such relief as he thinks proper. Meanwhile, he granted him interim bail for 30 days. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand refer to other three cases arising outside Delhi in which anticipatory bail was granted by this court, in one case by J.D. Jain, J., and in one case by Talwar, J., and in yet another case by me. Since then, I have come across orders of the Calcutta and Madras High Courts granting interim anticipatory bail in similar situations so that the petitioner could get breathing time to apply to the Court concerned.