The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that while individuals residing outside India can file applications for pre-arrest bail, they must be physically present in the country prior to the final hearing to enable the court to impose and enforce bail conditions effectively.

Justice Namit Kumar, while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of a man residing in Canada, remarked that “a person sitting on an armchair in a foreign country cannot be allowed to take the justice delivery system of the largest democracy in such a casual manner.”

The judge noted that despite being granted protection by the lower court with the direction to join investigation, the petitioner failed to comply and was now approaching a higher court without any valid justification for defying the earlier order.

The court warned that such reluctance to participate in legal proceedings sets a poor precedent for the NRI community and undermines faith in the judicial process. “Such conduct sends the wrong message to society, particularly to the NRI segment, regarding adherence to the procedural laws of the country,” Justice Kumar observed.

Emphasising the importance of judicial discipline and cooperation with investigative authorities, the court held that the petitioner, accused under Sections 406, 420, 498-A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly harassing his wife and committing fraud to gain immigration benefits, could not treat the justice system as a matter of convenience.

The complainant, a Canadian permanent resident and the petitioner’s wife, alleged that the marriage was solemnised with the sole intent of helping the accused settle abroad, and that she was later subjected to dowry-related cruelty.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the FIR stemmed from a matrimonial dispute and carried only general allegations. However, the court noted that the petitioner had already defied the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, who had directed him to join the investigation, leading to the rejection of his earlier bail plea.

Referring to the Kerala High Court’s ruling in Anu Mathew v. State of Kerala, the court reiterated that it must be satisfied of the applicant’s presence or ability to promptly appear in India before granting anticipatory bail. Without such physical presence, the court cannot impose restrictions, such as prohibiting the applicant from leaving the country under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.

The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s continued absence and non-compliance indicated an intent to secure a blanket order merely for convenience.

Justice Kumar underscored, “The right to seek protection of pre-arrest bail cannot be exercised in such a casual manner, treating it as a ticket to travel at will, while ignoring court directions.”

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail plea was dismissed.

Case Title: GXXXX v. State of Punjab
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Khunger
Counsel for State: Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab