KULBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 167 dated 23.7.2010, registered under Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act and 17/20 of Unlawful Activities Act, 1967, at Police Station, Sadar Khanna. The case for the first time came up for hearing on 29.5.2012, when it was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. It was for the reason that in paragraph 14 of the petition, statement was made by the petitioner that no such or similar petition had earlier been filed by the petitioner either in this court or Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India or Sessions Court. As the same was in contradiction to the information furnished by the Registry in terms of which the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Misc.-M No. 7320 of 2012, which was dismissed on 14.3.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to statement made in paragraph 10 of the petition stating that number of the petition earlier filed had been mentioned therein. The statements made in paragraphs 10 and 14 of the petition run contrary to each other. It was under these circumstances that the petition was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner to enable him to take appropriate steps. Thereafter, it was listed on 4.7.2012. As necessary correction was not made, it was again adjourned for today.

(2.) Today, Criminal Misc. Application No. 39290 of 2012 has been filed praying for deletion of paragraph 13 from the main petition. A perusal of the petition shows that paragraph 13 merely states that the petitioner undertakes to abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed upon the petitioner while granting concession of regular bail. He undertakes to appear in court on each and every date of hearing and not to leave the jurisdiction of the court without permission. Even deletion of the aforesaid paragraph will not cure the defect in the petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bail application filed by an accused, who is in custody, cannot be dismissed on this technical frivolous ground as substance in the petition has to be seen. As the Registry of this Court has already furnished the information about the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner, hence mentioning or not mentioning thereof will not make any difference. In the application filed by the petitioner, substance has to be seen and not merely that paragraph number has been wrongly mentioned.