NANAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . G.C. Dhanda, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and it is not desirable that he should be taken into custody when he is prepared to associate himself with the investigation. Reliance is placed on two decisions in 1984 Cr. LJ 214 and 1978 Cr. LJ 502. If the argument of Mr. Dhanda is taken to the logical conclusion then it would imply that every accused who can successfully evade his arrest should be granted anticipatory bail if he files an application under Section 438(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THIS is not the intention of the Legislature. The power under Section 438 of the said 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 the ambit and scope of Section 438(1) of the Code. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court opined in Gurbax Singh Sibia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980(2) SCC, 565 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 for the grant or refusal of bail whether anticipatory or after arrest. In the instance case, the nature of the charge against the petitioners contained in the first information report is quite serious.

(3.) THE fact that the allegation relate to embezzlement of Rs. 94,726/ - cannot be brushed aside. A perusal of the police record shows that the investigation so far conducted has reveled the complicity of the petitioner in the case right from the beginning. Whether or not the accusation is correct, is not to be seen at this stage as indeed such a consideration would be premature and I would not like to express any opinion on that aspect of the case. It has been strenuously urged on behalf of the State that the arrest of the petitioner is required for making certain recoveries and for ascertainment of the other material facts regarding the disposal of the money. 4.Applying the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Gurbax Singh Sibia's case (supra), I find that the petitioner has not made out a case for anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the seriousness of the accusation and the larger interest of the public and the State, I do not find any jurisdiction to admit the petitioner to anticipatory bail. The petition is accordingly rejected. Petition dismissed.