Crl. Misc. No. M-30803 of 2011(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-30803 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 25, 2011 Amardeep Singh Brar ---Petitioner versus State of Punjab ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab *** Gurdev Singh, J. Reply filed by the State in the Court today, is taken on the record. This petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner, Amardeep Singh Brar son of Darshan Singh, for giving him seven days' prior notice, in case he is to be arrested in any FIR having been registered against him. He has contended therein that he is a post graduate and is nephew of Manpreet Singh Badal, President of the People's Party of Punjab, who was earlier a Crl. Misc. No. M-30803 of 2011(O&M) {2} Finance Minister in the Government led by SAD-BJP combine. The said Manpreet Singh Badal raised his voice against the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Punjab, and ultimately resigned from the party. The People's Party of Punjab started “ Jaago Punjab Yatra” and made 22 lac workers. It was on account of his efforts which resulted in big gatherings and he was instrumental in motivating the people to join his party. He has become an eyesore for the Government, which is bent upon to falsely implicate him in one way or the other and he is getting threats from various quarters. In the last three days, before the presentation of this petition, the Punjab police officials had been visiting his house regularly and had been telling that they have come to arrest him. False cases have already been got lodged against dozens of people for forcing them to join the SAD. He is apprehending his arrest, being In-charge of three Districts of Punjab. In the reply filed by the State of Punjab, in the form of an affidavit of Shri Amrit Brar, Assistant Inspector General of Police, Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh, most of the facts have been denied for want of knowledge or on the ground that those did not relate to the answering deponent. It has been submitted therein that no such representation or complaint has been received from the side of the petitioner and he has not given the details of the FIRs, which have been registered against the persons for forcing them to join SAD. No such criminal case has been registered against the petitioner so far and in fact he wants to gain popularity by filing this petition. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Crl. Misc. No. M-30803 of 2011(O&M) {3} the petitioner is apprehending his arrest for non-bailable offences as the Ruling Party wants to wipe out him from the scene in order to dis-enable him to contest the coming elections as he is closely related to one Manpreet Singh Badal, who is proving to be a threat to the Ruling Party. Merely on the ground that no such case been registered so far, cannot be made a ground that the apprehension of the petitioner is not well founded. The police had been visiting his house in his absence for arresting him which shows the intention on the part of the police to arrest him in some false case. On the other hand, it has been submitted by learned State counsel that since the filing of the present petition, no such FIR has been registered against the petitioner which itself shows that his apprehension is not well founded. Moreover, he has not made any representation to any higher authorities about his false implication. The facts, as stated in the petition, have not been specifically denied in the reply. The reply has been filed by the said deponent on behalf of the State and he has taken up the plea that some of the facts, stated in the petition, do not relate to him. An easy excuse was made, regarding some of the facts, by replying that those are being denied for want of knowledge. His reply should have been specific one and the State Government cannot go away from its responsibility of collecting the proper information and disclosing the same to the Court. The registration of some FIR for seeking anticipatory bail is not sine quo non. It has recently been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Siddharam Satligappa Whetre Vs. State of Maharashra and others 2010(6) RAJ 581 that filing of an FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Crl. Misc. No. M-30803 of 2011(O&M) {4} parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail have been laid down in that judgment. The case of the petitioner falls within those parameters. He is apprehending his arrest in some false case, so as to dis-enable him to take part in the coming elections. He is not seeking a blanket bail and has only made a prayer that he be given seven days clear cut notice before his arrest, if any FIR is to be registered against him so as to enable him, to seek his remedy under the law. The apprehension of the petitioner is well founded and keeping in view the facts of the case, this Court is of the considered view that he is entitled to the prayer made in the petition. He shall not be arrested for any non-bailable offence in respect of any FIR to be registered against him on account of any such political vendata, unless he is given seven days' prior notice. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 25, 2011 PARAMJIT