ARVIND SOOD Vs. ROOPALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners seek the benefit of anticipatory bail against whom the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tikamgarh, has ordered issuance of warrant of arrest, after taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC, on a private complaint filed by complainant Smt. Roopali (respondent No. 1 ). The aforesaid facts are found dictated by the IInd ASJ, Tikamgarh, who refused anticipatory bail to these petitioners, on 21-5-2002 (certified copy is on record ).

(2.) THE grant of anticipatory bail is being opposed on the ground of issuance of warrant of arrest by the Trial Court, and it is submitted that the benefit of anticipatory bail cannot be claimed by these petitioners, who may surrender to the Court's custody and seek regular bail.

(3.) IN agreement with the case of P. V. Narasimha Rao v. State (C. B. I.), reported in 1997 Cr. LJ 961, and Puran Singh Vs. Ajit Singh and another, reported in 1985 Cr. LJ 89 (both D. B. decision cases), it is found explained by this Court in Arun Kumar v. State of M. P. , reported in 2000 (1) C. Cr. J 95 (MP), that when the Magistrate takes cognizance of offence in respect of non-bailable offence, the accused would be entitled to move the Competent Court for grant of anticipatory bail and the said application would be maintainable even if the summons is issued. It is also found explained in the aforesaid cases that the grant of bail under Section 438 (1), Cr. PC by the High Court or the Court of Session is dependent on the merits of a particular case and not the order of the Magistrate choosing to summon an accused through bailable or non-bailable warrant.