Criminal Misc. No. M-18320 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-18320 of 2009 Date of Decision:08.09.2009 Megh Raj and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Rajvir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurdev Singh Cheema – respondent No.5 in person. Mr. H.P.S. Binder, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Megh Raj and others under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. Nil dated Nil registered under Section Nil at Police Station Sadar Samana on the complaint of respondents No.5 to 7 in the event of arrest or in the alternative, if they are required for any investigation or inquiry, they be served with 7 days' advance notice. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. In re: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Rashid and another, Criminal Misc. No. M-18320 of 2009 -2- 2005(7) Supreme Court Cases 56, Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the direction of the High Court that the petitioner therein shall not be arrested in any crime except after written notice to him. In re: D.K. Ganesh Basu v. P.T. Manokaran and others, 2007(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 161 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering similar direction to the investigating agency granting advance notice relying on Adri Dharan Das's case and other earlier decisions, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court. In re: Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and another, 2005(1) Supreme Court Cases 608, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court granting unconditional protection. In re: Bharat Inder Singh Chahal's case (supra) by relying upon the above referred decisions, the Division Bench of this Court held that “while considering the claim of pre-arrest in a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code normally/ generally blanket protection such as not to arrest the petitioner without intimation to him or give advance notice before arresting him should not be given.” It is further held that “it is made clear that we are not going into the merits of the allegations made in the complaint and it is for the investigating agency and the ultimate court to find out the truth about the allegations made. On perusal of the particulars referred to above, in the light of the principles repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that there cannot be any blanket direction for giving advance notice fixing certain period in view of the facts noticed here. However, the discretion vested in a court under Section 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be exercised depending on the extra-ordinary circumstances based on acceptable materials.” Criminal Misc. No. M-18320 of 2009 -3- Adverting to the facts of the instant case, I am satisfied that the petitioners have not made out strong and special circumstances for giving directions to the respondents for advance notice before effecting their arrest in the case. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of. September 08, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE