MAHARAJ KRISHAN DEWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks direction in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) (sic) from this Court that in the event of his arrest, he be admitted to bail on such conditions as may be imposed by this Court. The petitioner is alleged to have committed offences under Sections 365/323/347/342/323, Indian Penal Code. Notice of this petition was given to the Advocate General, Haryana. Shri R.K Handa has stated that the petitioner had absconded and was not available to the Police on several dates and that his arrest was required for making certain recoveries and also for the ascertainment of material facts regarding the disposal of the property and the other persons who may be involved in the whole affair and also for effecting recoveries of some important documents.

(2.) MR . K.S. Thapar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and it is not, desirable that he should be detained in custody as he is prepared to associate himself with the investigation. Strong reliance is placed by him on Shri Gurbux Singh Sibia and others v. The State of Punjab 1980 (Crl) 465 to urge that since and order of anticipatory bail does not in any way take away from the police the right to investigate the charges made or to be made against persons released on bail, direction in terms of Section 438 of the Code should not normally be denied to an accused person. If the argument of Mr. Thapar is taken to the logical conclusion then it would imply that every accused, who can successfully evade his arrest should be granted anticipatory bail once he files an application under Section 438 of the Code. That is not the intention of the Legislature. The powers under Section 438 of the Code have to be sparingly used and should be invoked for furthering the ends of justice and saving innocent persons from being harassed or humiliated in appropriate cases. While considering to ambit and scope of Section 438 (1) of the Code. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shri Gurbux Singh Sibia and others' case, (supra), opined that the grant of anticipatory bail was a matter of judicial discretion and no hard and fast rule could be laid down in such discretionary matter like the grant or refusal of bail whether anticipatory or after arrest. Their Lordships decline to categories circumstances under which bail before arrest may be granted or refused. They, however, provided certain guidelines to assist the Courts to exercise their discretion. Suffice to say that the accusations against the petitioner are of a serious nature. The learned State Counsel has submitted that the aarrert of the petitioner was required for making certain recoveries and for as certainment of certain material facts regarding the charges against the petitioner. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the grounds taken by the learned State Counsel to oppose the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner are either extraneous or irrelevant. Since an order of anticipatory bail is somewhat or an extraordinary character, while exercising discretion the Court must be satisfied that a fit case had been made out by the accused for the exercise of discretion. Applying the guidelines given by the Supreme Court, in Shri Gurbux Singh Sibia and others case, (supra), I find that the petitioner has not made out any case for being admitted to anticipatory bail. The petitioner is accordingly rejected. Revision dismissed.