Crl.M.No.M-14037 of 2008 -1 - IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-14037 of 2008 Date of Decision : 10.7.2008. Baldev Singh Matharoo ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.I.P.S.Sidhu, Sr.DAG Punjab for respondent No.1. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.81 dated 22.7.2006 under Sections 409 IPC registered at P.S. Dehlon, District Ludhiana. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that incident of embezzlement had taken place during June 1995 to 1999. The amount allegedly embezzled was deposited by the petitioner with interest. The petitioner was proceeded against through departmental inquiry. He was compulsorily retired and an order has been passed for reduction in pension and gratuity. It is further contended that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Crl.M.No.50868-M of 2006 for grant of anticipatory bail which was allowed on 27.11.2006. It was provided therein that order dated 27.11.2006 shall ensure till 10 days after the petitioner receives a Crl.M.No.M-14037 of 2008 -2 - notice of filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., within which period the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for regular bail. It is further submitted that when the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented the petitioner applied for bail that has been rejected by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class on 11.4.2008, thereafter, the petitioner had applied for bail before Sessions Judge, Ludhaina which was dismissed on 28.4.2008 on the ground that same is not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that once anticipatory bail is granted by this Court, the trial Court could not cancel the bail but could only ask the accused to furnish bonds to ensure his presence during trial. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Bibi Jagir Kaur 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 127. Para 23 of the judgment is relevant, which is reproduced as under: “Suffice it to say, we are not at the stage of considering whether the evidence collected by the investigating agency is or is not that weighty so that Bibi Jagir Kaur should or should not be allowed to remain on bail during the trial and be sent to custody. In this case, the question for consideration before us is whether the order granting anticipatory bail to Bibi Jagir Kaur came to an end as soon as challan was put in court and that after the putting in of the challan, she should be left to apply for regular bail to the court of session or in the order granting anticipatory bail, no such time limit should be read and that order should enure till the trial of the case is over if not cancelled by the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted relying upon Bholai Mistry and another Crl.M.No.M-14037 of 2008 -3 - v. The State, 1977 Crl.L.J. 492 that anticipatory bail granted by the High Court cannot be cancelled under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate or even by the Sessions Judge. It can be cancelled only by the High Court. At the time of commitment, the Magistrate has to admit the accused on bail. He has simply to ask the accused to furnish necessary bonds so that the presence of the accused at the trial is ensured. In V. Chinna Reddy and others v. N.Vidyasagar Reddy and another, 1982 Crl.L.J. 2183, it was held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that the committing Magistrate is not permitted to cancel the bail of an accused person and to remand him to custody at the time of committing the case to the Court of Session for trial if he has been bailed out by an order of the High Court or of the Court of Sessions unless the order passed by the High Court or of the Court of Session is of a temporary nature and permits the Magistrate to re-consider the matter at some subsequent stage in the proceedings. When once the bail granted to the accused was governed by Chapter 33, the bail should continue to be in force till it is cancelled under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C. or under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. In Ramsewak and others v. State of M.P., 1979 Crl.L.J.1485, it was held that the bail granted under section 438 Cr.P.C. will be valid and operative for those offences only for which the bail has been granted which would last till the conclusion of the trial, unless it is cancelled under section 437(5) if it is necessary to do so.” Counsel for the State could not cite any law contrary to the Crl.M.No.M-14037 of 2008 -4 - above cited by the counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 10.7.2008 Judge Meenu