Tarun Vaid Alias Tarun vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 3795 P&H

      CRM-M-53731-2021                                              1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
209
                                                 CRM-M-53731-2021
                                                 Decided on : 04.05.2022
Tarun Vaid @ Tarun
                                                                . . . Petitioner
                                  Versus
State of Punjab
                                                            . . . Respondent
CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: None for the petitioner.

         Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab.
                             ****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 438

Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in lieu of non bailable warrants of

arrest issued against the petitioner in case FIR No. 189 dated

16.08.2011 under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station Adampur,

District Jalandhar Rural.

A perusal of the petition would show that the petitioner was

released on bail by the trial Court and thereafter, on account of non

appearance, his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and

forfeited to the State and non bailable warrants were issued vide order

dated 25.11.2021. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated

25.11.2021 but has filed an anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

directly before this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain

Vs. Haryana State Pollution Control Board, reported as 2020 SCC

Online SC 1101, has held as under:-

1 of 2

"1. The petitioner was granted regular bail in a prosecution under Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. Suffice it is to observe that the bail then came to be cancelled because of non-appearance. Proceedings under Section 174A IPC ensued leading to his arrest pursuant to which he was released on bail. The petitioner now seeks anticipatory bail pursuant to the cancellation of the regular bail granted to him under Section 15 of the Act.

2. A person released on bail is already in the constructive custody of law. If the law requires him to come back to 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. We, therefore, reject the prayer for anticipatory bail."

Thus, in view of the abovesaid judgment, the present

petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

Moreover, no one has appeared before this Court in

compliance of the order dated 22.12.2021.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an

appropriate petition in accordance with law which, in case filed, would

be considered independently, in accordance with law.

                                                     (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                        JUDGE
04.05.2022
Mehak
                      Whether reasoned/speaking?         Yes/No
                      Whether reportable?                Yes/No




                                            2 of 2