STATE Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by the State against the order. dated 31. 5. 1972. passed by the Special Judge. Mandi granting anticipatory bail to Sarvshri Puran Chand and Dr. Om Parkash respondents.

(2.) THE respondents had surrendered themselves on 2. 5. 1971 before the Special Judge, Mandi and they had contended before him that a case under Sections 420, 467. 468. 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been registered against them and that the police was likely to arrest them at any moment and that the warrants to secure their arrest had also been obtained by the police. The learned Special Judge granted interim bail to the applicant-respondents\and issued notice to the State and the case was ultimately heard by Shri A. H. Bhoil, successor of Shri Ram Pal Singh, who has since been transferred from Mandi to Dharamsala. Before the. learned Special Judge, it was contended that the petitioners were Government employees and there was little likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the evidence and that the case against them had admittedly been registered and, their arrest was imminent and since both the Petitioners were respectable Government employees it would put them to unnecessary ridicule in the public and. therefore, their release on bail was essential in the interest of justice. This application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, who contended that anticipatory bail could not be granted and he placed reliance on various authorities, which find reference in the impugned order made by the learned Special Judie. The learned Special Judge distinguished all those authorities and held that the offences for which the cases against the petitioners had been registered were nonboilable and cognizable. According to him. issuance of any warrants of arrest was not necessary and the police could at any time arrest the Petitioners which would mean causing unnecessary harassment to them. And further that from the ruling reported in 1971 Cri LJ 572 (Orissa), it was apparent that there was a conflict between different High Courts regarding the grant of anticipatory bails and hence he observed that each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and he held that in view of those facts, the petitioners were entitled to be enlarged on bail and he accordingly enlarged them on their personal bail bonds of Rs. 2000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class.

(3.) THE learned Advocate-General contends that this order is wholly erroneous, inasmuch as there is no provision in the Code for the grant of anticipatory bail and that the question of bail arises only when a person is under custody or when a warrant of arrest is issued and that there is nothing of the kind in the instant case and that the lower Court has transgressed its jurisdiction in granting the bail to the persons against whom no warrants of arrest had been issued. The simple registration of the case particularly when the officer investigating it could not investigate the same without the permission of the Magistrate could not entitle the respondents to seek bail, and he relied on: Amir Chand v. Crown AIR 1950 EP 53c (FB) : State v. Dalhu Punia AIR 1954 Madh B (113) : Juhar Mal v. State : Amiad Sheik v. The State : Public Prosecutor v. Manikya Rao : State v. Narayan Prasad : State v. Baswa Nath Rao AIR 1966 Mvs 71 : 1966 Cri LJ 267 : Pulinthanam v. State : State v. Jagannath Swain 1971 Cri LJ 572 (Orissa ). in support of his contention, that there was no Provision for anticipatory bail. None has appeared for the respondents because the petitioners have already been challaned and admitted to bail and so, the question of anticipatory bail has now become academic add the learned Advocate-General wants that this Court should decide the Question whether anticipatory bail can be granted in law.