IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M- 1065 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 14, 2011 Manjit Singh Sandhu …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is an application seeking anticipatory bail in case Criminal Complaint No. 45/2 dated 02.03.2002, “Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Ludhiana (PUDA) vs. Kuldeep Singh and others”, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagraon, District Ludhiana, under Section 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Crl.M.No.M- 1065 of 2011 Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was on the regular bail. However, on 12.05.2010, the petitioner has moved an application seeking exemption from personal appearance, which was allowed only for 12.05.2010. However, thereafter, petitioner did not appear before the Court. Accordingly, Court has issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under:- “438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest – (1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely.. xxx xx xxx” From the perusal of Section 438 of the Code, it can safely be held that application under Section 438 of the Code can only be moved when a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of non-bailable offence. 2 Crl.M.No.M- 1065 of 2011 Undisputedly, offence under Section 36 of the Act is bailable offence. In a bailable offence, application seeking anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Dismissed. However, it is provided that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 25.01.2011 and shall move an application seeking bail from the Trial Court, which shall be heard and decided by the Trial Court in accordance with law on the same day. January 14, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3