Anticipatory Bail Can Be Filed From Abroad But Accused Must Come To India Before Final Hearing: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has said that although "an application for pre-arrest bail can be filed even by a person residing outside the country, however, the only limitation is that prior to the final hearing, the applicant must be inside the country" to enable the Court to impose and enforce bail conditions.

Justice Namit Kumar in his order observed, "a person sitting on an armchair in a foreign country cannot be allowed to take the 'justice delivery system' of a largest democracy of the world in such a casual manner that despite the fact that he has been granted protection by jurisdictional Court below to join the investigation, he chooses not to do so and is again knocking the doors of higher Courts for the same relief, without any justifiable and cogent reason for defying the orders of the Court below..."

The Court emphasised that such kind of reluctant approach on the part of the petitioner, who is living abroad, "will give wrong impact on the society at large, especially the NRI segment, to follow and adhere the procedural laws of the country."

Justice Kumar highlighted that the right to seek protection of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to be exercised by the petitioner, who is living in Canada, "in a casual manner to catch any train at his own pleasure, since it will lead to diminish the sanctity of 'justice delivery system' as well as deterrent effect qua adherence and compliance of the court orders."

The Court was hearing an anticipatory bail of a husband accused of committing fraud and cruelty under Sections 406, 420, 498-A, 506 IPC.

According to the complaint, the couple was living in Canada and the wife was harassed by the petitioner-husband on account of dowry. The complainant also alleged that the family of the petitioner entered into the marriage with the intent of settling their son abroad since the woman was permanent resident of Canada and committed fraud against her.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that present FIR is the result of matrimonial discord between the couple and the allegations are general in nature.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the petitioner was directed to join the investigation by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge,, however, as he did not comply with the order, therefore, his application seeking anticipatory bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

Perusing of file, the Court noted that the petition has been filed by the petitioner while being in Canada and till date he is not physically present in India.

The Court referred to Kerala High Court's decision in Anu Mathew versus State of Kerala, wherein it held that "the court must be satisfied that the person concerned is either present in India or he must be able to present himself in India, immediately before the final hearing and if he is not present in India, the Court would not be able to stipulate a condition that he should not leave India without the prior permission of the Court, as conceived in Section 438(2)."

In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner has filed the petition for anticipatory bail while being at Canada and till date he is not physically present in India. 

Justice Kumar pointed that the petitioner failed to join investigation following the Sessions Court order, "which shows that intention of the petitioner is just to procure a blanket order to visit India for other purpose(s) and not to join the investigation."

Observing that "the right to seek protection of pre-arrest bail cannot be allowed to be exercised by the petitioner, who is living in Canada, in a casual manner to catch any train at his own pleasure, since it will lead to diminish the sanctity of 'justice delivery system' as well as deterrent effect qua adherence and compliance of the court orders," the court rejected the plea. 

Mr. Ashok Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab.

Title: GXXXX v. State of Punjab