NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Santosh Kumari was married with petitioner No.1 about 10 years back and a complaint was sent by her to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur which was forwarded by the latter vide his order No. 6099 dated 18th April, 1987 for registration of the case and this case vide F.I.R. No .fi3 dated 18th April. 1987 was registered in Police Station, Dirba under section 498.A of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. The petitioners apprehensive of their arrest moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail under 5. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974) (hereinafter called the Code) and the application had come up for hearing on 9th April, 1987 before the registration of the case. A written report was sent to the court that the petitioners were not required by the police in connection with any case and that no case had been registered till then. The application was therefore dismissed. Vide the said order of the Sessions Judge, the Investigating Officer was directed to give the present petitioners three days notice in case they were required in connection with the investigation of any case so that they might move the Court for anticipatory bail.

(2.) After registration of the case they were given 23rd April, 1987 by the Investigating Officer for their appearance before him and in the meantime they moved another application for anticipatory bail before that court and it was stated therein that they had been ordered to appear before the Investigating Officer before that date. This application came up for hearing on 21st April, 1987. Order annexure P.2 was passed by the Additional sessions Judge (II) releasing the petitioners on bail in case of their arrest to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the decision of that application. Vide the said order; notice of the application was given to the Additional Public Prosecutor for 27th April, 1987.

(3.) On the said date, after discussing the facts of the case the Additional Sessions Judge (II) was of the opinion that it was pre-mature to express any opinion whether the allegations contained in the complaint were sufficient to make out a case punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners or not. The anticipatory bail was declined only on the ground that the telegram sent by the petitioners to 8,S.P. 8angrur was not sufficient to show that the petitioners went to the Investigating officer on 23rd April, 1987. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge on was of the view that the sending of the telegram to S.S.P. Sangrur was an indicator towards the fact that the petitioners did not go to the Investigating Officer and had they gone to the Investigating Officer, telegram to him should have been issued or the facts should have been brought to the notice of the Court. In his view, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur did not figure in relation to the investigation of the case. A report from the Investigating Officer showing that the petitioners were not co-operating with the investigation was also produced before that Court. After considering all these facts the anticipatory bail was declined.