Judgment:
CRM M-43206 of 2013 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM M-43206 of 2013 Date of Decision: February 25, 2014 Parneet Singh Brar and others …..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI.
-.- Present:- Mr.A.R.Sidhu, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pratham Sethi, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab.
Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate -.- M.M.S.BEDI, J.
(ORAL) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the police record, it transpires that an FIR annexure P-1, No 254 dated November 26, 2013 was registered under Sections 66, 66A, 66D, 67, 67 A of IT Act read with Sections 292 and 506 IPC at Police Station Mataur, District S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali, against petitioner No.1.
In view of the allegations against petitioners No.2 and 3 also, they have got an Gupta Sanjay 2014.02.26 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-43206 of 2013 [2].apprehension of arrest in the said case.
The petitioners have moved this petition for grant of pre-arrest bail.
Petitioner No.1 after arrest has already been released on bail in the present case so the petition qua petitioner No.1 was dismissed as not pressed on December 20, 2013.
So far as petitioners No.2 and 3 are concerned, the investigating officer present in the Court informs that petitioners No.2 and 3 are not required at this stage, however, on the basis of investigation they might be required.
Taking into consideration the said circumstances, it is ordered that in case of petitioners No.2 and 3 are required to be arrested in FIR No.254 dated November 26, 2013 registered at Police Station Mataur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, they will be given 7 days notice in writing.
This order has been passed to protect the liberty of petitioners No.2 and 3 on the basis of uncertain and vague allegations against them in an FIR which was registered on November 26, 2013.
The period of 7 days has been granted to petitioners No.2 and 3 to avail their remedy under Section 438 Cr.P.C.by filing an appropriate petition before Sessions Judge, concerned.
Since petitioners No.2 and 3 have not filed any petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.before the Sessions Court, this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.is not being entertained but recognizing the right of life and liberty of petitioners No.2 and 3, on the basis of uncertain allegations in the FIR abovementioned, a protection has been granted in the exercise of inherent Gupta Sanjay 2014.02.26 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-43206 of 2013 [3].jurisdiction.
It is clarified that this order will be applicable for a period of six months and will be applicable only in a case got registered at the instance of respondent No.5 on the allegations in FIR No.254 dated November 26, 2013.
Counsel for petitioners No.2 and 3 has raised an apprehension that on the basis of some complaints filed by private respondents, the petitioners may be involved in cases of dowry or misappropriation.
In case separate case is registered, it will be open to the petitioners to avail the legal remedy available to them in accordance with law.
Disposed of with the abovesaid observations.
Nothing mentioned in this order will be considered as expression of opinion in other case registered or likely to be registered in future.
February 25, 2014 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE Gupta Sanjay 2014.02.26 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh