LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus RANINDER SINGH AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-\
STATE OF PUNJAB
A
.{
v .
RANINDER SINGH AND ANR. ETC.
NOVEMBER 19, 2007
B
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]
Criminal Appeal No. 160812007
Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973:
c
'
s. 438(2)(0-Anticipatory bail-Granted by High Court-Appeal
against-HELD: Jn view of s. 438(2)(i), while granting anticipatory bail
the Court can lay down a condition that the accused shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required-
D
Purpose of such a provision is that anticipatory bail can not be
permitted to be abused-It is made clear that in case respondents do
not cooperate with the investigation, then it is always open for the State
to move an application before High Court for cancellation of bail,
which will be decided in accordance with law.
E
Criminal Appeal No. 160712007
Contempt of Court:
-- \
Application and affidavit before High Court-Contempt notice
issued to Police Officer who sworn the affidavit for loose expressions F
occurring in the application-HELD: Normally Courts should not be
oversensitive and should not take very serious note of any loose
expressions in an application-Contempt jurisdiction is to be sparingly
exercised in very exceptional cases-However, applicant should use
proper language and state correct facts in his application-Although .G
..... >,
it is not contempt, proper decorum should be maintained-The Police
Officer had sworn the affidavit but counsel who prepared application
should have been more careful while drafting such an application-
They should not make incorrect statements:___Language used by them
307
H
308
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 12 S.C.R.
A should be in consonance with dignity of Court-On facts, it is not a
proper case where contempt notice ought to have been issued-Order
issuing contempt notice set aside-Order staying arrest of respondent
is maintained.
B
'Contempt of Court: The Need for a Fresh Look' by Markandey
Katju, AIR 2007 (March) (Journal Section), referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1608 of2007.
C
From the final Judgment/Order dated 24.5.2007 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. M.No. 33867-M/2007.
WITH
Crl.A.No. 1607 of2007.
D
K.K. Khurana, A.A.G., K.K. Venugopal, Ashwani Kumar Mata,
E
Ravi Shankar Prasad, U.U. Lalit, L.N. Rao, Kuldip Singh, Ajay Pal,
Vaibhav Dang, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Rashi Khurana, Atul Nanda,
Rajesh Kumar, Sandeep Bajaj (for M/S Law Associates & Co.) Arun
Monga, Rameeza and Naresh Bakshi for the appearing parties.
The Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
Criminal Appeal No. 1608 of2007@ SLP (Cr!.) No. 3433 of
F 2007.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
G
We have perused the impugned order dated 24th May, 2007
granting anticipatory bail passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab
''
& Haryana High Court in Cr!. Misc. No. 33867-M of2007. After hearing
• '
learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no inteference
is called for by this Court. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
H
~(
.,
STATE v. RANINDER SINGH
309
-I
However, we make it clear that in case the respondents do not A
cooperate with the investigation, then it is always open for the State to
move an application before the High Court for cancellation of the bail,
which will be decided in accordance with law.
It may be mentioned here that Section 438(2)(i) of the Code of B
Criminal Procedure is very clear that while granting anticipatory bail the
Court can lay down a condition that the accused shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. The
purpose of such a provision is that anticipatory bail cannot be pennitted
to be abused. It is therefore, implicit that whenever the Court imposes c
such a condition in its order, and the accused called for interrogation or
for certain investigation does not appear before the investigating officer
then it will be open for the State to move the High Court for cancellation
of bail.
-\
-"
We make it clear that this order is confined only to the F.l.R. in the D
present case.
Criminal Appeal No. 1607/2007 @SLP (Crl.) No. 3514/2007 .
..
,_,.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
E
Leave granted .
. This appeal by special leave is directed against the orders dated
,. '
15.5.2007 and 31.5.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Cr!. MExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.