Read Time: 08 minutes

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed the plea for grant of anticipatory bail and noted that if the petitioners’ bail was cancelled because of non-appearance in the court then he was not entitled for the grant of Anticipatory Bail.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi while dismissing the plea, relied on the Supreme Court decision in Manish Jain v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, 2020 and observed that,

“A person released on bail is already in the constructive custody of law. If the law requires him to come back custody for specified reasons, we are afraid that an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest will not lie. There cannot be an apprehension of arrest by a person already in the constructive custody of the law.”

The petitioner had filed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail expressing his apprehension of arrest for commission of non-bailable offence.

It must be noted that the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.01.2016 and the same was made absolute vide order dated 08.02.2016 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. On his non-appearance the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 30.10.2017. The petitioner was bound to appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed but the petitioner failed to do so and thereby misused the concession of bail.

“The above-said FIR was registered on complaint of Kiranpal Singh who, alleged that Sanjiv Vig (the petitioner) and his co-accused Ramesh Vig partners of firm M/s New Kissan Seed and Pesticides, Ludhiana had dishonestly sold inferior quality of paddy seed amounting to Rs.4,37,500/- to him. The farmers who purchased the said deeds from him suffered loss and he paid the compensation amount to those farmers. When he asked the accused persons, they made promise to return the amount to him but they did not pay the said amount and cheated him. Subsequent to his arrest during investigation, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 08.02.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangur on the basis of compromise effected between the petitioner and the complainant. On filing of Challan under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court despite issuance of summons, bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest and publication of proclamation against him. Accordingly, the petitioner was declared proclaimed person vide order dated 30.10.2017.”

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that,

“The petitioner is ready to appear before the trial Court and abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed by the Court. The petitioner is not likely to abscond, tamper with evidence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or to commit any other offence. Therefore, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.”

On the other hand, learned State Counsel has submitted that,

“The petitioner absented and did not appear before the trial Court and thereby misused the concession of interim bail. The petitioner is in constructive custody of the Court and present petition for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed.”

Taking into consideration the facts of the present case the Bench observed that,

“The petitioner does not deserve grant of anticipatory bail and the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail is liable to be as being not maintainable. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is dismissed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court within one week.”

“Needless to observe that if on his surrender the petitioner files any application for grant of regular bail, the Trial Court shall dispose of the same expeditiously,” added Bench.

[Case Title - Sanjiv Vig v State of Punjab, 2021]