Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Rajeev Talwar And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

Rajeev Talwar And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others

(High Court Of Punjab And Haryana)

CRM-M-1786 of 2021 (O&M), CRM-M-1789 of 2021 (O&M), CRM-M-1843 of 2021 (O&M), CRM-M-1898 of 2021 (O&M), CRM-M-1899 of 2021 (O&M), CRM-M-1901 of 2021 (O&M) and CRM-M-1912 of 2021 (O&M) | 14-01-2021

Deepak Sibal, J.

1. Case taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present order shall dispose of aforesaid seven petitions as they contain similar issues of facts and law.

3. On 28.06.2009 one of the aforesaid petitioners namely Rajeev Talwar was married to Monica Talwar who has filed a complaint with the police alleging therein commission of several offences under the IPC by the petitioners. On the basis of such complaint the petitioners were being summoned by the police for questioning. Apprehending arrest the petitioner(s) had filed applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court seeking therein anticipatory bail but in view of the statement made on behalf of the State that no FIR had been registered against the petitioner(s) while dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner(s) being premature the Trial Court issued directions that in case the petitioner(s) are to be arrested after registration of a case against them within a period of one month then at least two days prior notice be given to them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) contends that through aforesaid order of the Trial Court dated 18.12.2020 directions have been issued to the State that in case the petitioner(s) are to be arrested after registration of a case against them then at least two days prior notice be given to them; such protection is limited to registration of a case within one month of the date of the orders; in case the FIR is to be registered against the petitioners after a period of one month from the date of the order of the Trial Court they would not be entitled to the protection granted to them and therefore such protection be extended.

5. Learned State counsel submits that he has no objection if the above prayer is accepted.

6. Once the Trial Court has granted protection to the petitioner(s) that in case they are to be arrested after registration of a case against them they be given two days prior notice then to limit such protection to a period of one month would negate the purpose behind the order on the registration of a case against the petitioners after a period of one month of the date of the order of the Trial Court. There is also no reason to limit such protection for a period of one month especially when such order has not been challenged either by the State or the complainant.

7. In view of the above and in view of the no objection by the State the protection granted to the petitioner(s) of two days prior notice before their arrest after registration of a case against them shall extend till the time the petitioner(s) are to be arrested after registration of a case against them at the instance of petitioner-Rajeev Talwar's wife.

8. The present petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

Advocate List

  • Mr. Abhayjeet Singh

  • Mr. Amit Mehta, Sr. DAG, Punjab

Bench
  • Hon'ble Justice Deepak Sibal
Eq Citations
  • (2021) 1 LawHerald 401
  • LQ/PunjHC/2021/22710
Head Note

Anticipatory Bail/Preventive Detention — Police custody/Arrest — Notice of arrest — Scope of — Petitioners apprehended arrest on basis of complaint filed by their wife — Petitioners filed applications under S. 438 CrPC before Trial Court seeking anticipatory bail — No FIR had been registered against the petitioners — While dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioners being premature, Trial Court issued directions that in case the petitioners are to be arrested after registration of a case against them within a period of one month then at least two days prior notice be given to them — Held, once the Trial Court has granted protection to the petitioners that in case they are to be arrested after registration of a case against them they be given two days prior notice then to limit such protection to a period of one month would negate the purpose behind the order on the registration of a case against the petitioners after a period of one month of the date of the order of the Trial Court — There is also no reason to limit such protection for a period of one month especially when such order has not been challenged either by the State or the complainant — In view of the above and in view of the no objection by the State the protection granted to the petitioners of two days prior notice before their arrest after registration of a case against them shall extend till the time the petitioners are to be arrested