RAVINDER MOHAN BAKHSHI Vs. STATE OF PUNIAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Criminal P. C. 1973 (for short the Code) for a direction that in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail. It is not necessary to give all the allegations mentioned in the petition. Suffice it to say that as appears from the petition and the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. a criminal case has been registered in Central Crime Branch. Madras 8. vide First Information Report No. 130 of 1983 against the petitioners and others. The petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, who vide his order dt. May 10. 1983. granted bail. subject to the condition that they would get the bail confirmed from the Court of competent jurisdiction within one month from that day. Thereafter the present petition was filed in this Court.

(2.) DURING arguments, question arose, whether this Court is competent to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners against whom a case has been registered at Madras at the instance of M/s. Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd, Madras. The brief facts of that case according to a copy of the complaint filed with the return, are that 19 tractors were sent by respondent No. 3 to M/s. National Agriculture and Tractors Corporation, Ludhiana (for short the dealer), of which the present petitioners are some of the partners. 17 tractors were sent from Madras and 2 from Mohali through three transport companies who have also been made as accused in that case. For 15 tractors the documents were to be routed through bank and for the remaining four, the term of payment was cash to be paid in the Regional Office at Delhi. The consignment note had to be obtained after payment of the sale price of the tractors at the Regional Office. The terms and conditions were that the consignments were to toe stored at the destination under the control of the transporters and were to be delivered to or to the order of the consigned Bank mentioned in the lorry receipt. The transporters delivered the tractors to the dealer without presentation of proper documents.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has citerl Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 Cri LJ 1174. In that case, a case has been registered at Police Station Kotwali. Ludhiana (Punjab ). The Delhi High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused. However, that case is not of much help to the present petitioners. In that case the arguments raised on behalf of the Punjab State were that the said Court could only grant interim bail to the petitioner with the direction that he would appear in the Court of Session or the High Court for seeking bail. The objection was overruled and it was remarked that the Court had the jurisdiction not only to grant interim bail, but to confirm the same within the purview of Section 438 of the Code. Moreover, in that case, the facts and circumstances of the case were taken into consideration by the Court and it was held that the Court had the jurisdiction to grant bail.