SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned DAG Mr. S.S. Randhawa, assisted by Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate.

(2.) THE petitioners apprehend that they are likely to be arrested in connection with FIR No. 115 dated 26.7.1996, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (for short the Act). The learned D.A.G. has stated that bags of fertilizers were found short to a great extent and, therefore, anticipatory bail should not be granted. He has shown to me proviso to Section 12-AA of the Act. According to the said proviso, a Special Court shall not release any person accused of or suspected of the commission of an offence under this Act on bail without giving the prosecution and opportunity to oppose the application for such release, unless the Special Court, for reasons to be recorded in writing, is of the opinion that it is not practicable to give such opportunity and where the prosecution opposes the application, if the Special Court is satisfied that there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of the offence concerned. The learned DAG, therefore, relying on this provision argued that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in this case. He has also argued that granting of anticipatory bail is not a matter of right and it is a matter of discretion.

(3.) SECTION 438 of Cr.P.C. does not give any absolute right to anybody to be released on bail. The discretion is of the Court whether to grant anticipatory bail or not and that should be exercised only considering the facts and circumstances of the case and with due care and caution. If the order of anticipatory bail is likely to be misused, the Court certainly can refuse the grant of anticipatory bail. However, if by imposing conditions, the Court can secure the interests of the prosecution and investigation also, then there should be no bar in granting anticipatory bail.