JASWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Magistrate after applying his mind had issued non -bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioners in a complaint case and, therefore, the petitioners cannot now invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under section 438 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I need not discuss this point in detail because it has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Puran Singh v. Ajit Singh and others, (1984(2) Recent Criminal Reports 532) I.L.R. : (1984) Punjab and Haryana 362 herein Ram Lal v. State of Punjab and others, 1976 C.L.R. 388 which supports the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent was expressly overruled. It was remarked : - "Is thus patent in the light of the discussion above that the decision in Ram Lal's case (supra) that the jurisdiction under section 438 (1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only till an order is passed by a magistrate choosing to summon an accused through bailable or non -bailable warrant and not thereafter too deserves to be over -ruled and we order accordingly."

(2.) ON merits I think it is a fit case in which the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail. There appears to be a dispute between the petitioners and the complainant over the possession of the disputed land. The petitioners allege their possession while the complainant Jaswant Singh has alleged his possession in the complaint. I think the revenue entries support the petitioners because the complainant himself has stated in the complaint that the entries in the revenue records are wrong.

(3.) I order that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on each furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5000/ - with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Police Officer arresting them. This order about anticipatory bail is subject to the following conditions : - (1) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (2) That the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Order accordingly.