HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 11 of 2008 Reserved on: 10.3.2008 Decided on: 14.3.2008 Jagjit Singh Dardi & others ………Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Ms.Pratima Malhotra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. V.K. Ahuja, J: This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by 8 petitioners for directions to the respondents to give one week advance notice to the petitioners since they apprehend false implications at the behest of one Labh Singh Ahluwalia, who is out to falsely implicate the petitioners. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondent who did not file any reply inspite of time having been granted. _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners were that the petitioners are respectable members of the society and are holding good positions in the society and since one Labh Singh Ahluwalia has started making complaints against the petitioners in view of a civil dispute in between Labh Singh Ahluwalia and petitioner No.1 and as he is bent upon to falsely implicate the petitioners in one case or the other, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed by them that a blanket bail be granted to the petitioners that they shall be given advance notice in case any case is instituted against the petitioners at the behest of one Labh Singh Ahluwalia or his henchmen, who are out to falsely implicate the petitioners in view of the civil dispute in between the parties pending in Chandigarh Court. Heard. The submissions made were also in this regard that the petitioners are respectable citizens and since Labh Singh Ahluwalia is out to implicate them, a blanket bail should be granted to them that in case any case is registered within the State of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioners shall be entitled to one week advance notice. The submissions were also made in regard to the powers of this Court to grant the blanket bail and reliance was placed upon a Division Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 977, wherein these provisions have been considered by Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the said case law was not supplied by the learned counsel for the petitioners for perusal and the book is not available in the Library of the Court. After giving a considerable thought to the allegations made in the petition and hearing the learned Law Officer, I am of the opinion that the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted to them fully at this stage for the reasons given below. The present petition has been filed by 8 petitioners and it is not signed by all the 8 petitioners, but it is only signed by one of the petitioners, namely, petitioner No.6 Navdeep Singh, who has also sworn an affidavit in support of the assertions made in the petition. The allegations made were in regard to a dispute mainly in between petitioner No.1, namely, Jagjit Singh Dardi and one Labh Singh Ahluwalia and in case the petition had been signed and an affidavit had been sworn by petitioner No.1 that he and his family members are being harassed by said Labh Singh Ahluwalia, the allegations made in the petition could have been considered. The petition is mainly on behalf of petitioner No.1 that he and his family members are being falsely implicated in the State of Punjab and are likely to be implicated in the State of H.P. also, but only petitioners No.2 and 3 are his sons while other petitioners have any relation with petitioner No.1 or not is not clear. It is difficult to accept the affidavit filed by petitioner No.6 in regard to the allegations made mainly against petitioner No.1 and his family for falsely implicating them and this petitioner No.6 has sworn an affidavit giving the facts of the dispute without petitioner No.1 himself filing his own affidavit in support of the allegations made in detail in the petition. In an anticipatory bail, the petitioner has to file the petition alleging the facts and the allegations that he is likely to be arrested in some cognizable case and the facts of the case registered against him, if any, have to be alleged and affidavit has to be filed by the petitioner, who claims relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In the absence of the affidavit having been filed by petitioner No.1 in regard to the allegations made about the dispute in between him and said Labh Singh Ahluwalia and in the absence of the petition having been signed or affidavits filed by the petitioners, it is difficult to hold that the relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners, particularly when there are no specific allegations that any false case was got registered by said Labh Singh Ahluwalia by exercising his influence within the State of H.P, except one mentioned below. Apart from the above, the allegations were made in regard to some dispute in between the parties at Dehradoon in Uttranchal, Bijnore in UP, Kot Kapura in Punjab as well as a case at Chandigarh, but there are no specific allegations in regard to any specific case having been registered within State of Himachal Pradesh as against the petitioners. Some allegations were made about a case under Sections 379, 341, 506, 323/34 I.P.C. against petitioners No.2 and 7 at Police Station Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P., but no copy of the FIR has been filed nor the State has admitted that any such case has been registered against these petitioners at the instance of the said Labh Singh Ahluwalia. The petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though the petition should have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and in case it has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the question of blanket bail being granted in regard to the cases to be registered in the whole of Himachal Pradesh could have been considered by this Court in case the proper application alongwith affidavit and particulars was filed by the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the opinion that no such relief can be granted in favour of the petitioners about the advance notice to be issued in case the complaint is not only made by Labh Singh Ahluwalia but his henchmen also as nobody on earth knows as to how many henchmen are there of Labh Singh Ahluwalia and whether their number is one or one thousand and how the relief can be granted so that the orders of advance notice are duly implemented by all the police stations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed by them in the petition except mentioned herewith. The petitioners No.2 and 7 shall be entitled to an advance notice of 7 days in regard to the case registered under Sections 379/341/506/323/34 IPC at Police Station Parwanoo on the allegations made by one Baljit Singh as against petitioners No.2 and 7, as mentioned in para 8 of the petition. In case petitioners No.2 and 7 are to be arrested in this case, the SHO, Police Station Parwanoo shall issue an advance notice of 7 days to these petitioners. No other relief can be granted. The petition is partly allowed to this extent only and stands disposed of accordingly. (V.K. Ahuja), March 14, 2008 Judge. (TILAK)