BRAHAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHEN the matter came up for hearing on 5.10.2000, it was pointed out by Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj that there are certain grounds on which the present application for anticipatory bail would not be maintainable. He had submitted that the petitioner has been unsuccessful in his application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Initially, the petitioner had applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. At that time, learned Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to approach the learned Magistrate for regular bail and his arrest had been stayed for a period of 15 days. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the learned Magistrate for regular bail. That application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 25.10.2000.

(2.) LEARNED Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, observed that the petitioner was on anticipatory bail for a period of 15 days. The petitioner had filed regular bail application on 21.8.2000. The learned Magistrate observed that the application for bail filed by the petitioner deserves to be rejected on the ground that the investigating agency appears to be in league with the accused. At that stage, specimen signatures of the accused had not been taken for comparison purpose. It was also noticed that property which was stated to be worth Rs. 4,90,000/- has been leased out to the petitioner for 99 years for a paltry sum of Rs. 16,000/-. Thus, the application of the petitioner for bail was rejected. However, the petitioner was not taken into custody as his anticipatory bail was to remain in force for a period of 15 days w.e.f. 16.8.2000. It was also observed by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner should either obtain regular bail from the higher Court or surrender before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after the expiry of 15 days. Instead of moving an application for anticipatory bail, the petitioner again moved an application for regular bail which has been dismissed by order dated 20.9.2000. In this order also, the learned Sessions Judge has made certain observations with regard to the behaviour of the petitioner.

(3.) I am, however, of the prima facie view that this is not a case in which this Court ought to exercise its jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail. Two Courts below have given the findings that the petitioner is acting in connivance with the Investigating Agency. The pendency of the civil suit and the grant of injunction by the Civil Court in favour of the petitioner would not prevent the criminal agency from investigating the crime. In view of the serious nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, it would not be in the interest of justice for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The application for anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed. However, any observation made in the present order would not be taken into consideration by any other Court while deciding the application of the petitioner for regular bail, if and when applied for. Application dismissed.