JAI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by Jai Parkash under Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer for the issue of a direction that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail. At the Motion Stage, notice was issued to respondent No. 1 i.e. the State of Haryana through the Advocate General, Haryana, and an interim order was passed that the petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal meanwhile and he is directed not to leave India during this period.

(2.) DURING the pendency of the present petition Shri K.C. Kukreja (arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the petition) who is the complainant in the case before the trial Court, filed an application for being allowed to beheard in this matter. This application was considered along with the present petition. As the application was not opposed by the other parties, the same was allowed in terms of the prayer made by the applicant in person, for affording him a hearing in the matter.

(3.) COMING now to the advisability or otherwise of the grant of direction prayed for, it is not out of place to mention that the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State of Haryana (Respondent No. 1) did not oppose the present petition, rather conceded that the relief prayed for may be granted. The prayer was, however, opposed by Shri Kukreja, respondent No. 2, who sought to seek support by citing Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. v. The State of Punjab, and Sarbjit Singh and another v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1980, Supreme Court 1632, which is hardly of any benefit to the said respondent. The authority lays down certain guidelines in regard to the amplitude of judicial discretion given to the High Court and the Court of Session, while passing an order of anticipatory bail.