IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No. 533 of 2003 Date of Decision : March 20, 2009 Bawa Amarjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Isham Singh Rana and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioner was one of the accused in two criminal cases i.e., FIR Nos. 129 and 130, both registered on 9.12.2001 at Police Station Kalka, District Panchkula for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 506 IPC. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner along with his co-accused, filed two separate applications for the grant of anticipatory bail, which came up for hearing on December 25, 2001 before this Court when notice was issued and the arrest of the petitioner and others was stayed. However, they were directed to joined the investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating Officer. These petitions were later on disposed of on July 03, 2002 when the interim order dated 25.12.2001 was confirmed and a direction was issued that in the event of C.O.C.P. No. 533 of 2003 -2- their arrest, the petitioner and others be admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. According to the petitioner, on 4.4.2003 at about 4.30 A.M., he along with three others was sleeping in a house at Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, when both the respondents, along with other police officials, forcibly and illegally entered those premises and arrested the petitioner in FIR Nos. 129 and 130. The petitioner showed them the orders of the High Court granting anticipatory bail but the respondents and other police officials showed utter disrespect to those orders and forcibly took him in their government jeep. A report regarding the arrest of the petitioner was made at Police Post, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla vide DDR No. 30 dated 4.4.2003. By arresting the petitioner in aforementioned two FIRs in which he had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, the respondents deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the orders and, therefore, made themselves liable for being punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. Reply has been filed by respondent No.1 which has been adopted on behalf of respondent No.2 as well. It is the case of the respondents that despite issuance of three notices under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the police, first one on 10.3.2003, second on 20.3.2003 and third on 27.3.2003, requiring him to join the investigation in the aforementioned FIRs, the petitioner had not joined the investigation. In fact, the last notice issued on 27.3.2003 was served by C.O.C.P. No. 533 of 2003 -3- respondent No. 1 himself by visiting the house of the petitioner but the latter was not found present. Under these circumstances, a copy of the notice dated 27.3.2003 was affixed at the house of the petitioner at a conspicuous place. The petitioner had also been directed by the High Court to abide by the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which, amongst others, required him to make himself available for investigation but despite the same as well as issuance of three notices, the petitioner never made himself available for investigation. On 4.4.2003, respondent No.1 learnt that the petitioner was staying at Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. Accordingly, he left for Shimla to join the petitioner in the investigation. While doing so, he followed the proper procedure as prescribed under the law and DDR No. 29 was recorded at Police Post, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla on 4.4.2003. When the investigating team headed by respondent No.1 reached the house where the petitioner was staying, the latter was directed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds in compliance of the orders dated 3.7.2002 passed by this Court. The petitioner was joined in the investigation and interrogated. After collecting sufficient evidence, the petitioner was formally arrested in case FIR No. 129 dated 9.12.2001. However, the petitioner could not furnish bail bonds and surety bonds at Shimla, despite being asked time and again to do the needful. On the other hand, he showed his inability to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds at Shimla by stating that he would do the needful on reaching Kalka. This fact was duly incorporated in the case diary. Accordingly, the petitioner was taken to Kalka so as to enable him to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds. Therefore, it was clear that the C.O.C.P. No. 533 of 2003 -4- petitioner was, in fact, not arrested but taken into custody for the purpose of taking the bail bonds and surety bonds, which could be done at Kalka only as desired by the petitioner. Prayer has, thus, being made for dropping the contempt proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contempt petition as well as annexures attached thereto, besides the reply filed by respondent No. 1 and also its various annexures. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the accused in the FIR Nos. 129 and 130, both registered at Police Station Kalka on 9.12.2001 for identical offences, i.e., under Section 307 and allied offences of IPC. The petitioner had then applied for the grant of anticipatory bail. He was granted interim bail to begin with. Later on, interim order was made absolute and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. He was also directed to abide by the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With a view to associating the petitioner in the investigation of the case, three notices were served upon the petitioner. In fact, respondent No.1 made a conscious effot to serve the third notice dated 27.3.2003 upon the petitioner but as he was not found available at his house, the copy of the notice was affixed at a conspicuous place. Despite that the petitioner did not join the investigation of the case. Later on, respondent No.1 learnt about the presence of the petitioner in a house at Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. C.O.C.P. No. 533 of 2003 -5- Accordingly, he constituted a police party so as to conduct raid at the place where the petitioner was learnt to be staying. After reaching Shimla, respondent No. 1 got recorded DDR No. 29 dated 4.4.2003 at 4.00 A.M. at Police Post, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. In pursuance of the raid conducted thereafter the petitioner was found present in the house at Lakkar Bazar, Shimla. Respondent No.1 then asked the petitioner to furnish his personal bonds and surety bonds, however, the petitioner stated that there was no one at Shimla who could furnish surety for him. In fact, he wanted to be taken to Kalka so that he may arrange for furnishing surety bonds there. The petitioner was then joined in the investigation of the case. However, he could not be released on bail as he had failed to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds at Shimla. Accordingly, respondent No. 1 while taking the petitioner with him again went to Police Post, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla where he got recorded DDR No. 30 dated 4.4.2003 at 5.15 A.M. stating therein about the arrest of the petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 3.7.2002 passed by this Court while disposing of the two applications for the grant of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner would reveal that there was a specific direction requiring the petitioner to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer in the event of his arrest before he could be released/admitted to bail. Moreover, he was also required to abide by the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the petitioner had not been able to furnish surety bonds at Shimla, respondent No. 1 was justified in keeping him in C.O.C.P. No. 533 of 2003 -6- confinement. In fact, respondent No.1 left Shimla for taking the petitioner to Kalka so as to enable him to furnish surety bonds and then to release the petitioner. Moreover, as is clear from the three notices dated 10.3.2003, 20.3.2003 and 27.3.2003, the petitioner was required to join the investigation of the case. Despite the same, the petitioner never cared to appear before the police and join the investigation. In fact, no averment has been made by the petitioner in the present petition that at any point of time he had made any attempt to join the investigation of the case. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the respondents deliberately and intentionally disobeyed the orders of this Court in arresting the petitioner despite the order granting anticipatory bail to him. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. ( T.P.S. MANN ) March 20, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reports : YES / NO