GURDARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 298 dated 10.12.2006 under Sections 494, 406, 420, 506, 148, 149 IPC registered at Police Station Lambi District Muktsar. The FIR against the petitioner reads as under :-

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are no allegations against the petitioner in the FIR and the allegations are that daughter of the complainant has been maltreated at Germany and therefore no case of harassment is made out within the jurisdiction of India, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. This petition has been moved by the petitioner through attorney.

(3.) ON consideration of the matter, I find no force in this petition. The contention raised by the petitioner on merit deserves to be rejected as on earlier occasion the petitioner had moved Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2409-M of 2008 seeking quashing of the FIR and said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner. The said petition was filed through power of attorney and therefore, the points raised herein cannot be a ground for grant of anticipatory bail. Even otherwise anticipatory bail on behalf of accused through power of attorney is not competent. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevance to the points raised. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of K. Gopalakrishnan - Petitioner v. Karunakarann rep. By the Power of Attorney Holder - Respondent (supra) was dealing with a petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Similarly in Gurmit Kaur v. State of Punjab and another (supra) this Court has entertained a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the General Power of Attorney. No ground. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.