BHAJAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for the grant of blanket anticipatory bail to the petitioners regarding any case which may be registered against them and in the alternative for a direct-ion to the respondents to serve at least 7 days' notice before causing the arrest of the petitioners in any such case in future.

(2.) PETITIONER No I is former Chief Minister of the State of Haryana. He also remanded a Minister in the Union Cabinet. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons and are stated to be politically active. Respondent No. 2 was Chief Minister of the State at the time of filing the petition. Respondent No. 3 is DIG Police, Hissar Range. According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 1 and Shri Devi Lal, who is at present Deputy Prime Minister of India hail from the same area in the State of Haryana. They are old political adversaries and have been fighting elections. They have both been Chief Minister of the State of Haryana at one time or the other. Shri Om Parkash Chautala, respondent No.2, became Chief Minister of Haryana at a later stage. on an earlier occasion, a case under sections 161/165, Indian PenalCode, and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against petitioner No. 1. It was FIR No. 372 PS Sadar Hisar. Petitioner No. 1 filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9172 of 1987. By order dated September 8, 1988, the writ petition was allowed by this Court and the aforesaid FIR was quashed. The State of Haryana filed SLP No. 14014 of 1988 and the same is pending in the Supreme Court. It is with this background that the petitioners apprehend that the respondents are likely to get some false cases registered against them and arrest the petitioners in order to humiliate and embarrass them.

(3.) THE question whether a blanket order for anticipatory bail should be passed in the present case or not is rendered academic, as Shri Sibal confined his prayer to the limited relief that a direction may be given to all concerned that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be given one week's notice so that they can approach the appropriate Court for anticipatory bail. In support of his aforesaid prayer, he relied on a number of precendents of this Court.