Sumedh Singh Saini v. State Of Punjab And ANR
!" "#$%$ &' !()*$+,
' - ./010
! " !
!
!
#$
$% &&&& 10,2* +3'
' !
(
#
) * +
, -)*+-. #
#
/
!
#
#( #
# ' + 0 " +
+ # %11%
* %112 %13% " !
+
%13% %134
516%137
/+ ! ) ' !
!
!
!
(
! !
-8-
# #
# !
!
9 '#!
!
:
+
! # 3331%137!
!
; (
( #
!
" +
+
!(-
! !'
3331%137!
:
%5<%1%1 # 0 31<%1%%3!
!
4
!"#$ % &%'
() **
+,
-
.
& !"!!
) /
) ")!" 0
!1)2)!"!"
) /
3 &%'
!"# $%
&%'
) /
3
& !"!!) /
& !"!!3
!"4 )))
) /
3
& !"!!)5 '
=
/! !
# ) >5%1%% ?/
6 +,
7 + +
+
$
)
)5 + !
/+ ! ,3./+$22
64%1%1
56> %135>>551%3< 3%19* + )
) #
$
!
51% + )!
,%./+$3%<
27%137
5125%65%>5%55>3%13%373%19*5>3>73>< + )
%4 %2
3<4<
) #; (
/ ( ,
$53
<31%1%1. ,5./+$351
%331%134
51%5125>3%13%373669 3%19*5>3<>3<4 31< + )
%4 %2
3<4<
* (
/ ( ,
$36
%2<%1%1. ,>. /+$35
%7%1%3
35,3.,. !
35,%. )
3<77 # ) , .
%137
31< 3%19* + )
* 93
$
, . ,4. /+$33
32<%1%1
>1<>%1 >62>67>233%19* + )
35,3., . !
35,%. )
* + /+ !
# #
@ 334%1%1'
51%+ )!
)
9 53%%1%1 + /+ ! # ) A
+
' , -+'-. + ;
!
#
+ !
!
# + /+ !
9 #
35%1%3 3%7%1%3
# ' ! !
/+$35 !
/+$33+ !
!
! 3<7%1%3' !
! + !
+
0
# #
( * )99>4%>%
5 %137
!
#,
.
#!
/+'
!!
'
#
!
'
!
#
# %/
3 &%' () 19
,
&%'9
&%'() !:
1)2)!"!
0;
1!1 1:
1:%
$
< =( )/ &%'
>
$
?
3
3
)/
6
9 3
)
+'
/+$33 35
# #
)*+ #
#
' #
#
#
'
( # ) =
/+$3%>+
/+
! +'/
!A! # =
/+
)
# :
9
)
( !
+' +'
*
+' #
'
/+$33 35!
# +'
/+$3%>
/+! +' =
!
/+
!
# )
/+:
/+ $33
'
!
/+ =
#! /+$33 %6>%1%%
#
>57) ) =
"
) #!
+
0 # #
!
! %6>%1%% '
#
# '
(
9 # + 7*8 9%(0$&:(0$88$ &; !("*%</0! !" 7&= 8, >
3045,) * ) !
! /* ) 7*8 9%(0$&:(0$88$ </ 0! !" 7&= 8, >6 *+. 2 3
> "We agree that a 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail should not generally be passed. This flows from the very language of the section which, as discussed above, requires the applicant to show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant's apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. That is why, normally, a direction should not issue under Section 438(1) to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever."
That is what is meant by a 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail, an order which serves as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely or unlikely regarding which, no concrete information can possibly be had. The rationale of a direction under Section 438(1) is the belief of the applicant founded on reasonable grounds that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. It is unrealistic to expect the applicant to draw up his application with the meticulousness of a pleading in a civil case and such is not requirement of the section. But specific events; and facts must be disclosed by the applicant in order to enable the court to judge of the reasonableness of his belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the exercise of power conferred by the section".
(emphasis supplied) In the present case, though initially the petitioner was granted interim protection, it would not be out of place to mention that much water as flown under the bridge in last four years since filing of this petition. Learned Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from Harvinder Singh, DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Mohali states that as on date the petitioner is not
required in any other FIR except FIR No. 77 dated 6.5.2020, FIR No. 130 dated 21.10.2015, FIR No. 129 dated 7.8.2018, FIR No. 13 dated 2.8.2021 and FIR No. 11 dated 17.9.2020. It would be relevant to note that leaned Advocate General has made a statement that in case the petitioner is nominated in FIR No. 124 dated 3.9.2021 and is required, he would be given seven days prior notice.
FIR No. 11 has been specifically dealt on the basis of the statement made by learned Advocate General that the investigating agency will not proceed in the said FIR till 26.4.2022, thereby giving sufficient time to the petitioner to avail his remedies. In all other FIRs, the petitioner was granted protection.
In the present scenario, the petitioner is aware of the cases he is involved in and he is apprehending his7 nomination in FIR No. 124 dated 3.9.2021. No special circumstances are made out for grant of blanket protection of seven days advance notice in case the petitioner is nominated in an FIR in future. Such a protection would be against the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra), i.e. passing order for accusation yet to be levelled. The prayer made for exemption of the personal appearance of the petitioner in the trial court, as rightly opposed by learned Advocate General, needs not to be dealt with at this stage. The appropriate stage and forum would be before the trial court when the petitioner is required to put an appearance. There can be no doubt that in case such a prayer is made, the same would be considered in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of.
Since the main petition is disposed of, pending applications if any, also stand disposed of.
10
!()*$+, ( 3B ( C DC$ %B
DC$