Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 Date of decision : 10.11.2009 Amarinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.L. Saggar and Mr. K.S.Nalwa, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. In this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., filed by Shri Amarinder Singh ( a former Chief Minister of the State of Punjab), the learned State Counsel has raised a preliminary objection to the very maintainability of the petition as it purports to seek anticipatory bail which is blanket in character and not related to any particular category of cases and for an indefinite period of time. The plea is resisted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner by making a clarificatory response to the effect that petitioner is not seeking blanket anticipatory bail but is restricting relief to a direction that the Investigating Agency shall give seven days advance notice to the petitioner as and when it is decided to proceed against him on a charge pertaining to abuse of power and misconduct in the course of duty as the then Chief Minister of the State of Punjab. Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -2- **** Learned Senior Counsel further argues that the underlined subjects of apprehended charge have been indicated by him in order to preempt the plea that the grant of relief has to be fettered by the duly noticed expectation of the charge. That plea, it is argued, stems from the pleadings raised at the trial and also urged in the course of whatever transpired at the earlier hearings of the case. That the petitioner is a former Chief Minister of the State of Punjab is beyond the pale of controversy. Likewise, it is also common ground that he has already been allowed regular bail in case FIR No.5 dated 23.3.2007, Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. It is also apparent from the material obtaining on the file that the relationship between the petitioner and the present establishment is far from cordial. The creases in their interse relationship are apparent from the various newspaper clippings which have been placed on record. It is also common ground, at the time of arguments before this Court, that the Investigating Agency was initially contemplating search of the residential Palace of the petitioner but proposal was dropped thereafter. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argues that his apprehension that he would be suddenly arrested and harassed stems from the fact that his son (and also another relation) and all his associates had been proceeded against and all of them had been able to obtain the protection from this Court ( i.e. Punjab and Haryana High Court). It is further argued that all that the petitioner is pleading is protection from harassment which is likely to be caused on account of his sudden arrest. He further states that petitioner is only requesting for few days notice in case the Investigating Agency decides to proceed against him in a matter pertaining to abuse of power and misconduct relatable to the period he Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -3- **** was holding the office of Chief Minister of the State of Punjab. On a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings of the parties and on appreciation of the material obtaining on the file, I feel that the limited relief presently sought by the petitioner is in order. The grant thereof would not impede the course of investigation of the Investigating Agencies in any manner. At the same time, both the parties shall be able to have their say before the competent Court of Law in the context of the decision by the Investigating Agency to proceed against the petitioner in the indicated category of litigation. The view obtained by the various Coordinate Benches of this Court in Ram Chander Vs. State of Haryana 1986 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (P&H) 561, Bhajan Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 1986 (2) Recent Criminal Reports (P&H) 515 and Criminal Miss. No.37266-M of 2002 (Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab) is fully supportive of this view of mine. Apart therefrom, sustenance can also be drawn in the context from a judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in K.N.Aggarwal Vs. State through C.B.I. 1999(2) RCR Delhi 411. In that case, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.K.Sabharwal (as His Lordship then was) held that the grant or refusal an anticipatory bail plea is a matter of discretion of Court and there are no inflexible rules governing the grant thereof. It was further held that petitioner would be entitled to bail if there is prima facie indication of a political vendetta. At the same time, it was also held that the converse need not necessarily follow i.e. the mere fact that political vendetta is prima facie not shown, by itself, shall not be a ground to refuse anticipatory bail. Even in Bharat Inder Singh Chahal Vs. State 2007(3) RCR 977 (relied upon by the learned State Counsel), all that the Apex Court had held was that a blanket protection of arrest or grant of advance notice Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -4- **** before arrest should not be normally/generally afforded to an accused. In the present case, however, it is not a blanket protection of the above category. The relief would be available to the petitioner only in cases which proceed on the allegation of abuse of power and misconduct in the course of duty as the then Chief Minister of the State of Punjab. Further, the order would be operative for a period of one year from the date of this order. I am inclined to grant this order in view of the fact that rival pleadings-related contentions of the parties do indicate that the apprehensions in the mind of the petitioner may altogether not be misplaced. It is, obviously, not for this Court to comment upon the correctness or otherwise thereof. The petition shall stand allowed to the extent that there shall be a direction to the respondents that if the Investigating Agencies decide to proceed against the petitioner on the allegations of abuse of power and misconduct in the course of duty as the then Chief Minister of the State of Punjab, they shall afford seven days notice to the petitioner to have recourse to the law. The order would be operative for a period of one year from the date of this order. On point of fact, I have to make it clear that mere quotation of the rival contentions of the parties shall not be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits or otherwise thereof. The adjudicatory exercise in the matter of validity or otherwise of rival contentions is in the exclusive realm of competent Court of Law having jurisdiction to undertake it. The following implications of the order can be safely culled out from the above discussion:- 1. The plea for the grant of blanket bail has not been pressed at the time of arguments before this Court. The Criminal Misc. No. M-45804 of 2007 -5- **** relief sought has been restricted to seven days advance notice if the Investigating Agencies of the State of Punjab decide to proceed against the petitioner. 2. The order granted by this Court is to the effect that if the Investigating Agencies of the State of Punjab decide to proceed against the petitioner, they shall afford seven days notice to the petitioner to have recourse to the law. 3. The order would be complied with in the cases pertaining to the allegations of abuse of power and misconduct in the course of duty as the then Chief Minister of the State of Punjab. 4. The currency of the order shall be for a period of one year. Disposed of accordingly. November 10, 2009 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE