In Pre-Arrest Bail Plea, Court Can Ask Police To Intimate Intention To Not Arrest Accused So That Liberty Is Not "Tricked" Later: P&H High Court
Dealing with a "unique prayer" seeking fifteen days' advance notice in case the investigator proposes to arrest the accused in a corruption case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court said that if a pre-arrest bail plea is filed and investigators take a stand that they do not intend to arrest, then the Court can direct them to inform the accused about their intention so that later they cannot...
Dealing with a "unique prayer" seeking fifteen days' advance notice in case the investigator proposes to arrest the accused in a corruption case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court said that if a pre-arrest bail plea is filed and investigators take a stand that they do not intend to arrest, then the Court can direct them to inform the accused about their intention so that later they cannot "play tricks on a person's liberty".
Justice Anoop Chitkara noted that "the reasons mentioned for such a unique prayer are that, as of the date, the petitioner is not apprehending arrest, but if his apprehension turns true, it can put the petitioner through unnecessary harassment."
"Such an approach is not permissible because the petitioner can seek legal advice, and if he has a bit of apprehension, he can always resort to Section 438 CrPC.It is clarified that in case the petitioner files a petition under Section 438 CrPC and the investigator takes the stand that they do not propose to arrest him, then indeed, in such a situation, this Court can give directions to the investigator to inform him about his intention not to arrest so that they cannot later play tricks on person's liberty and operate secretly by initially taking a stand that they do not intend to arrest and after withdrawal of such petition discreetly knocking at their doors at midnight to curtail their liberty," observed the judge.
Gopi Chand Chaudhary, was booked in a corruption case under Sections 120-B, 406, 418, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 13(1)(c)& 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, who filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking fifteen days' advance notice in case the investigator proposes to arrest the petitioner in the FIR.
The State counsel submitted that they do not need to file any formal response as the present petition is not maintainable.
On the other petitioner contended that the Court had granted similar relief in Padam Kumar Bansal v. State of Haryana [CRM-M-15824-2023]. In the said order, it was clarified that if an investigator proposes to arrest the petitioner, the petitioner must be given one week's advance notice, he added.
However the counsel for state pointed out that the petition of Padam Kumar Bansal was filed for quashing of FIR itself, and when the Court was not inclined to grant a stay, then on the request of the petitioner, who was apprehending arrest, such order was passed and the said order was also valid only till the next date...as such the said order was not permanent.
After hearing the submissions, the Court said that "it shall be permissible for the present petitioner to straightway come to this Court under Section 438 CrPC if he so desires."
It further added that the, petitioner will have to clarify that he "shall not claim any prejudice in this regard and shall not claim that he had lost an opportunity by using concurrent jurisdiction of this Court which was also a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India."
In the light of the above the plea was disposed of.
Mohit Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner.
Vikrant Pamboo, Addl. AG, Haryana (Through VC).
Title: Gopi Chand Chaudhary v. State of Haryana and others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 141