IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-18863 of 2011 Date of decision: 8th July, 2011 Ishu Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Virk, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) This is the second petition for pre-arrest bail filed in this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has sought modification of the order (Annexure P-2) passed by this Court on 9th March, 2011 on the ground that the trial Court is not competent to grant regular bail. A specific averment has been made in this petition, which reads as under: “6. That during the course of arguments addressed in the aforesaid regular bail application, which the petitioner has filed before the learned trial Court, it has transpired that on account of bar under Section 437(1)(i), trial Court would be handicapped in granting concession of regular bail to the petitioner for the reason that the offences (Sections 468 and 471) mentioned in the FIR in question are punishable with imprisonment for life. In such an eventuality, concerned Court, who shall be competent to grant regular bail to the petitioner would be the learned Sessions Court.” Criminal Misc. No.M-18863 of 2011 This Court is of the view that the stand taken by the petitioner is misconceived. The correct position of law has been authentically propounded in ‘Ramji v. State of Punjab’ 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 538. Therefore, in view of the law laid down in Ramji’s case (supra), no credence can be granted to the averments made in para No.6 of this petition, reproduced above. The judgment rendered in Ramji’s case (supra) is a precedent binding and this Court has no reason to doubt that the trial Court will consider the ratio of law laid down in Ramji’s case (supra). With the observations made above, present petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 8, 2011 rps 2