Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt.Ltd. vs State of Punjab & Ors

Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab & Ors. ... Respondents

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant-ShreeBaidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. (for short, `the

Company) is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.

It appointed M/s. S. Bhatia Enterprises, Ludhiana (for short, `the firm') as its

Carrying and Forwarding Agent under a contract. The company through its

General Manager, Y.P. Sharma, lodged a First Information Report before the 2

PS Kotwali, Jhansi on or about 2.11.2001. The case was ultimately

transferred to the Court of CJM Chandigarh by this Court by an order dated

24.2.2003.

3. The respondents herein filed an application for grant of anticipatory

bail. By reason of an order dated 25.2.2005 the High Court, while granting

anticipatory bail for one month asked the respondents to approach the Court

of CJM to seek for regular bail. Respondents filed an application seeking

correction of a typographical error in the order dated 25.2.2005 which was

allowed by reason of an order dated 24.3.2005.

The respondents instead of appearing before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, filed an application for regular bail before the Additional

Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by

order dated 19.4.2005 directed them to appear before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate.

4. The respondents filed an application for regular bail before the High

Court. They also sought for stay of execution of non-bailable warrants

against them. Both the applications were dismissed by the High Court vide

its order dated 19.8.2005.

3

Respondents filed an application seeking extension of time for grant

of pre-arrest bail. Notice was issued in the said application.

5. On or about 6.12.2005, non-bailable arrest warrant was issued against

the respondents on their failure to appear before learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate.

6. Respondents filed an application for stay of the non-bailable warrant

of arrest. Notice was issued in the said application. Thereafter, the

respondents filed another application before the High Court, inter alia,

praying for grant of pre-arrest bail and sought for stay of the said order dated

6.12.2005.

Another application was filed by the respondents seeking bail. The

High Court vide an ex parte order dated 27.12.2005 directed that the

respondent may be released on bail on their appearance before the Chief

Judicial Magistrate. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granted them bail on

or about 2.1.2006. The said order has not been brought on record.

7. On or about 5.1.2006, the Investigating Officer filed his objections

before the High Court of Chandigarh questioning the validity of the ex parte

order granting bail to the respondents.

4

8. Appellant filed an application before the High Court on 9.1.2006

praying for vacation of the ex parte interim order.

9. On 28.4.2006, counsel for the accused withdrew all the petitions filed

by them stating that since all the accused have furnished regular bail bonds

in the High Court of Chandigarh pursuant to order dated 27.12.2005, the

accused need not press the pending petitions. The High Court by reason of

the impugned judgment dismissed the application for cancellation of interim

order dated 27.12.2005.

10. The appellant is, thus, before us.

11. For the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, the Court of Sessions or

the High Court must take into consideration the ingredients therefor as laid

down in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ordinarily, an

order granting anticipatory bail should not be for an indefinite period,

particularly when the FIR had been in a police station of another State.

The High Court, in our opinion, thus, committed a serious error in

passing an ex parte interim order on 27.12.2005 directing the Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Chandigarh to release the respondents on bail. The High Court

should not have passed the said order which for all intent and purport was a 5

final one at that stage. Respondents evidently took undue advantage of the

said ex parte interim order. When such an order was passed, the Chief

Judicial Magistrate had no other option but to grant them bail. The High

Court, therefore, committed a manifest error in allowing the respondents not

to press their application. The High Court ought to have considered the

effect thereof, namely, the interim order has thereby been made a final order

which is impermissible in law.

12. An interim order is always passed subject to the final order. Before a

final order granting anticipatory bail is passed, the High Court was required

to apply its mind not only with regard to the stage in which the investigation

was pending but several other factors including the conduct of the accused.

13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be

sustained. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the High

Court for consideration of the appellant's application for cancellation of

interim bail as also the respondents' application for grant of anticipatory

bail.

14. For the aforementioned purpose, the order dated 28.4.2006 permitting

the respondents not to press their applications is also set aside. The High

Court must consider the matter afresh and upon hearing the parties and upon 6

taking into consideration all other relevant factors dispose of the matter as

expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from

the date of communication of this order.

.....................................J. [S.B. Sinha]

.....................................J. [Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi;

August 4, 2009