CRM No. M-36194 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-36194 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.12.2011 Surjeet Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ravi Satija, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. Petitioner/accused has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. assailing one of the directions issued by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, in the judgment dated 16.12.2009 directing the accused to co-operate/join the investigation. The brief facts inter alia are that FIR No.123 dated 2.6.2009 was registered in Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat, for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. Petitioner and Kuldeep Singh co-accused surrendered in the Court of learned JMIC, Panipat, on 3.7.2009 and were granted bail by the Magistrate under Section 436 Cr.P.C. on the same day. Investigating Officer on 25.8.2009 moved an application for the cancellation of the bail before learned Magistrate on the ground that accused failed to join investigation and despite of asking failed to produce carbine (crop harvesting vehicle) involved in the accident and its Registration Certificate etc. Learned Magistrate vide CRM No. M-36194 of 2009 (O&M) -2- order dated 2.9.2009 dismissed the application seeking cancellation of the bail having observed that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancelling the bail by Magistrate; if police thinks that accused is not cooperating, police can move Court of Sessions or High Court for cancellation of bail. Thereafter, matter was carried to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 16.12.2009 has disposed of the revision petition, however, has directed the accused to join investigation. Feeling aggrieved from the direction, directing the accused to join investigation, present petition is preferred before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Mr. Rahul Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, while citing the judgment of learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in the Case of Hanumanthegowda Vs. State of Karnataka, 1997(1) Crimes 303, has argued that if offence is bailable then while granting bail learned Court is not competent to issue certain conditions in the bail order. As per Mr. Rahul Vats, direction of the Sessions Judge to join investigation amounts to a condition in the bail order which is not sustainable under the law. Mr. Gaurav Dhir, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has refuted contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and has vehemently submitted that if offence is cognizable, police has every authority to ask the accused to join investigation and direction to join investigation shall not amount to illegal pre-condition of the bail. In the case of Hanumanthegowda (supra) condition in the bail CRM No. M-36194 of 2009 (O&M) -3- order was that accused shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in three days, which was held to be illegal. However, no such condition is imposed in the present case. The only direction was to join investigation, therefore, judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Hanumanthegowda (supra) has no application in the present case. Now the question arises as to whether accused, on bail, in a bailable offence although cognizable in nature, can avoid investigation or shall not make himself available for the investigation? In the case of Rasiklal Vs. Kishore s/o Khanchand Wadhwani, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 161 : 2009(4) SCC 446, in paragraph No.8 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: - “8. It may be noticed that sub-Section (2) of Section 436 of the 1973 Code empowers any court to refuse bail without prejudice to action under Section 446 where a person fails to comply with the conditions of bail bond giving effect to the view expressed by this Court in the above mentioned case. However, it is well settled that bail granted to an accused with reference to bailable offence can be cancelled only if the accused (1) misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (2) interferes with the course of investigation, (3) attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses, (4) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (5) attempts to flee to another country, (6) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (7) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive. However, a bail granted to a person accused of bailable offence cannot be cancelled on the ground that the complainant was not heard. As mandated by Section 436 of the Code what is to be ascertained by the officer or the court is whether the offence alleged to have been committed is a bailable offence and whether he is ready to give bail as may be directed by the officer or the court. When a police officer releases a person accused of a bailable offence, he is CRM No. M-36194 of 2009 (O&M) -4- not required to hear the complainant at all. Similarly, a court while exercising powers under Section 436 of the Code is not bound to issue notice to the complainant and hear him.” From the perusal of paragraph No.8 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is, thus, clear that bail in a bailable offence can always be cancelled if accused interferes with the course of investigation or attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency. Meaning thereby if accused, on bail in a bailable offence, does not join investigation and does not become available to the investigating agency or otherwise interferes with the course of investigation, his bail can be cancelled. In other words, accused on bail in a bailable or non-bailable offence has to make himself available to the investigating agency. In a cognizable offence he cannot avoid investigation saying that he is on bail in a bailable offence and no direction can be issued to make himself available to the investigating agency. Therefore, I am of the view that if offence is cognizable in nature and accused is on bail, he is duty bound to make himself available to the investigating agency; he cannot avoid investigation saying that he is on bail in a bailable offence. Direction issued by the Court in a bailable offence to join investigation, while granting bail, would not amount to any illegal condition, if offence is cognizable. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present case. Petition is dismissed. (Alok Singh) Judge December 07, 2011 R.S.