CRM No.M-22278 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 23.09.2011 (1) CRM No.M-22278 of 2011 Daljeet Singh Gill ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents (2) CRM No.M-26634 of 2011 Nachhattar Singh ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-22278 of 2011) Mr.B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM No.M-26634 of 2011) Mr.S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. **** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) These are two petitions under Section 438 Cr.P.C. where both the petitioners are alleging that they are likely to be arrested due to political reasons. In both the cases, affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State clearly stating therein that no case has been registered against the petitioners and that they are not CRM No.M-22278 of 2011 ::2:: wanted in any case. The prayer made in the both the petitions is for grant of blanket pre-arrest bail. In Bharat Inder Singh Chahal versus State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 977, Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held as follows:- 7. “The analysis of both the decisions made it clear that “blanket order” of anticipatory bail should not be “generally” passed. It also makes it clear that “normally” a direction should not be issued to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail “whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever”. 8. It is clear that even under Section 438 Cr.P.C., if special circumstance/circumstances shown and in extra-ordinary case and ample materials placed, the court to strike a balance between individual rights of personal freedom and the investigation right of the police, pass an appropriate order including the one directing the prosecution to give advance notice for a reasonable time. However, there cannot be a direction such as that the applicant shall be released on bail “whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever” without reference to special circumstances and acceptable material. As stated earlier, we make it clear that the duty lies on the court considering application for the anticipatory bail to strike a balance between the applicant's right to personal freedom as well as the investigation right of the police. 16. The above decisions relied on by both sides clearly show that while considering the claim of pre-arrest in a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code normally/generally blanket CRM No.M-22278 of 2011 ::3:: protection such as not to arrest the petitioner without intimation to him or give advance notice before arresting him should not be given. As pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is true that all these orders were passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an appeal filed against the orders of various High Courts in a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code. Though the petitioner has filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227, the principles enunciated therein are applicable to the case in hand. 17. We have already observed in the earlier part of this judgment while considering a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code, the High Court/Subordinate Court though have no power to grant blanket order, in an extra ordinary case and if special circumstances are available, they are free to pass appropriate order on the acceptable material.” No contrary view has been brought to my notice by the learned DAG, Punjab. In the face of this binding precedent, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer for blanket pre-arrest bail is not justified. However, it is directed that in the event that the respondents need to take the petitioners in custody, three days' advance notice will be given to them. Disposed of September 23, 2011 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE