C.O.C.P.No.2058 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.O.C.P.No.2058 of 2008 Date of Decision:-4.8.2009 Rajbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sital Singh SI and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.C.Berry, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): The grievance of the petitioner in this case is that despite the fact that he was granted pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 3.12.2008 in Criminal Misc.No.M-31831 of 2008, yet he was arrested by the respondents on 3.12.2008 itself and thus, the respondents are liable to be punished for contempt of this Court for not obeying the order passed vide Annexure P5. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, separate replies have been filed by the respondents, wherein a specific stand has been taken that two FIRs were registered against the petitioner i.e. FIR No.145 Dated 4.11.2008 and FIR No.147 dated 7.11.2008 at Police Station City Ropar. The petitioner was arrested on 4.11.2008 in case FIR No.145 of 2008. It is further stated by the respondents that the petitioner was in judicial custody in the aforesaid FIR and he was to be arrested in the second FIR i.e. FIR No.147 of 2008, Illaqa Magistrate was also approached for issuance of production warrant for C.O.C.P.No.2058 of 2008 2 permission to arrest the petitioner. However, the matter remained pending and was fixed for 6.12.2008 for further consideration. The application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ropar in case FIR No.147 of 2008 was dismissed on 1.12.2008 whereas regular bail application filed by him in case FIR No.145 of 2008 was allowed and Rajbir Singh petitioner was released from the Central Jail, Ropar on 3.12.2008 at about 11.50 A.M. As the petitioner was to be arrested in case FIR No.147 of 2008, he was arrested in the aforesaid FIR at 11.50 A.M. outside the Roper Central Jail and was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar in the evening at about 4 P.M. It has been further specifically stated that copy of the interim order dated 3.12.2008 was not produced by the petitioner or any of his relatives. Since the controversy involved herein is based on disputed questions of fact as the petitioner is alleging that he was picked up from his house, I am not inclined to proceed further with this petition. Rule discharged. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek any other remedy available in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance. (Rakesh Kumar Garg) 4.8.2009 Judge AS