BAKHSHISH KAUR,J - (1.) THE allegation against the petitioner is that he had allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs. four thousand. Earlier his application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed vide order dated December 20, 1999 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 3879-M of 1999.
(2.) MR . Jindal, learned counsel has contended that the ground for moving the second bail application is that the co-accused have already been allowed bail. One of the co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail while the other regular bail. Mr. Jindal has prayed that the petitioner may be granted ad interim bail till he move the lower Court for regular bail and to support his argument he has placed reliance on Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 1042. The observations made by the Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court read as under :- "...Anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases, but that does not mean that the regular court, which is to try the offender is sought to be by-passed and that is the reason why the High Court very rightly fixed the outer date for the continuance of the bail and on the date of its expiry directed the petitioner to move the regular Court for bail. That is the correct procedure to follow because it must be realised that when the Court of Session or the High Court is granting anticipatory bail, it is granted at a stage when the investigation is incomplete and, therefore, it is not informed about the nature of evidence against the alleged offender. It is, therefore, necessary that such anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration and ordinarily on the expiry of that duration or the extended duration, the Court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular Court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the chargesheet is submitted. It should be realised that an order of anticipatory bail could even be obtained in cases of serious nature as for example murder and, therefore, it is essential that the duration of that order should be limited and ordinarily the Court granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for the original Court which is expected to deal with the offence. It is that Court which has then to consider whether, having regard to the material placed before it, the accused person is entitled to bail." Keeping in view the law laid down in Saluddin's case (supra), this petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner makes an application for regular bail before the learned Special Judge within a week from today, the learned Special Judge will dispose of the same within a period of one week from the date of filing the application. The arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed during the period. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. Petition allowed.;