SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON December 15, 1993, A.S. Nehra, J. declined the prayer for anticipatory bail with the following observations :-

(2.) IN spite of this order, the present application has been filed. Mr. Sushil Mohunta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has now come across the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which a recommendation for the cancellation of the FIR has been made. He further submits that the petitioner's father has already been granted bail under Section 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by this Court and that the petitioner's custody is not required by the police for any purpose whatsoever. Accordingly, he submits that the relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the initial presumption of innocence has been re-enforced in this case by the report of the Investigating agency. In such a case, the rule enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gurbakh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the Court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, especially when no such restrictions have been imposed by that Legislature in the terms of that Sections, is fully applicable. Still further, it is conceded by the counsel for the respondents that no recovery has to be effected and the petitioner's presence is not required even for interrogation. The fact that the Court has summoned the petitioner only implies that he would undergo trial. This, by itself, does not furnish an adequate ground for refusal of bail.