BHARAT INDER SINGH CHAHAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Criminal Miscellaneous under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for grant of interim direction to the respondents that if any FIR is registered against him in future, the respondents should give him three weeks' notice before the registration of FIR and his arrest pursuant thereto.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Counsel Sh. R.S. Cheema who appeared for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Media Advisor to Captain Amarinder Singh, former Chief Minister, Punjab, in February 2002 and he was given the status of a Minister. The petitioner had resigned in January 2007 before the assembly elections in February 2007 wherein the present government was voted to power. As per his further submissions, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 5 dated 23.3.2007 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(c) and (d) read with Sections 13(2) and 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, known as 'the Ludhiana City Centre Scam', only on the statement of a property dealer to the effect that he had assured him with allotment of a shop in that complex and had accepted Rs. 1 lac in lieu thereof. In the said case, out of 18 accused 13 have been granted interim bail/anticipatory bail or regular bail. Hence, looking to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that he is entitled to seek parity, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail was accepted to the extent of admitting him to interim bail vide the order dated 31.5.2007 of this Court. Further, the petitioner could also make out a case of reasonable belief that on account of serious political and ideological differences with the leaders of the party in power, he may be subjected to custodial tortures and humiliations. Besides, he being a heart patient also expressed an apprehension that he may be further implicated in some other false cases and arrested at the behest of the people in power. Hence, the learned Senior Counsel prayed for grant of direction to give advance notice against such FIRs and arrests. Under the circumstances, the learned Additional Advocate General prayed for and was granted time to file an affidavit of the Director, Vigilance Bureau, giving the details of the cases wherein the petitioner is required. The order on reproduction reads as under :-

(3.) AS from the contents of para 4 of the affidavit it appears that the Bureau has collected certain documented informations about the petitioner and is examining the same to find out as to whether from some informations an offence could be made out, learned Senior Counsel, Shri Cheema, argued that it is not a case where the State is categoric in saying that no other case is likely to be registered against the petitioner and he cannot be arrested in other cases. This is also a submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioner is a heart patient and if he is given a surprise by sudden arrest in any case by misusing such materials, he may suffer a serious set back to his health. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that a direction for advance notice before arrest in an FIR would be covered under the provisions of Section 438 apart from that of Section 482 Cr.P.C. According to learned Senior Counsel in three such cases this Hon'ble High Court has granted such relief and, therefore, there is no legal impediment in accepting his prayers as such. In the first case, reported in 1986(2) Recent Criminal Reports (P&H) 561 (Ram Chander v. State of Haryana), Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Punchhi (as his Lordship then was) had passed the direction as "Investigating Agency is directed to give one week's time to petitioner to apply for anticipatory bail in case a criminal case was registered against him." In the second case reported in 1990(2) Recent Criminal Reports P&H 515 (Bhajan Lal and others v. State of Haryana and others), Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Chowdhri also directed that the investigating agency shall give one week's time to petitioners in case it was proposed to arrest them so that to enable them to seek relief of anticipatory bail, and in the third case (which is unreported), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta in Crl. Misc. No. 37266-M of 2002 of (Hardeep Singh v. The State of Punjab) passed the order as : "in case the petitioner is wanted in any other criminal case, then he shall be given a week's notice. The petitioner is allowed to be accompanied by a lawyer".