SETH PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND -respondent-Rattan Singh has filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, against petitioner-Seth Pal and others under Sections 323, 354, 427, 452, 506 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint he has mentioned about three incidents which allegedly took place on 6.9.1990, 20.9.1990 and 15.12.1990. Allegedly the other accused armed with lathies, gandasis and sticks gave several beatings to the wife of the complainant, while the petitioner gave leg and fist blows. All the accused are alleged to have caused damage to the house, and loss.

(2.) THE petitioner filed an application for bail in anticipation of arrest before the Sessions Court, Jagadhari, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed his application on the ground that the trial Court has only issued process for securing the presence of the petitioner i.e. bailable warrants only and, therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest at all. But the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that he has never been served in the complaint filed by the complainant and that all the offences alleged except under Sections 452 and 294 I.P.C. are bailable offences. He also contends that only simple injuries are alleged to have been caused and, therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. He further points out that the complainants' earlier complaint dated 14.1.1991 was dismissed for default for 8.11.1991 and that the petitioner has filed the second complainant i.e. the present complaint on 5.12.1991.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced the copies of several zimini orders passed by the Court to show that the petitioner was not served at all but yet the petitioner has been ordered to be arrested and produced. Annexure P-5, which contains the copies of the zimini orders shows that on 25.5.1999 bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner for 30.7.1999. He has also produced annexure P-7, which is also the copy of the subsequent zimini order passed by the Court, which also shows that the bailable warrants issued in respect of the petitioner were returned unexecuted and that warrant of arrest has been issued. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that he can be released on bail in anticipation of arrest. He further points out that the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. alleged against him is also a non-bailable offence, and therefore, also he is entitled to be released on bail in anticipation of arrest.