Joginder @ Jindi v. State of Haryana
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- Dr. Arijit Pasayat
- Harjit Singh Bedi
- Judgment Date
- 2008-09-08
- Court Decision / Holding
- Special Leave Petition disposed of.
- Final Disposition
- Special Leave Petition disposed of.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Joginder @ Jindi
Respondents
- State of Haryana
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Ranjit Kumar
- • Subodh Kumar Pathak
- • Shashi Ranjan
- • 8. Pattanaik
- • Dharmendra Kumar Sinha
Case Synopsis & Summary
Joginder @ Jindi v. State of Haryana concerns a Special Leave Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The appellant Joginder, alias Jindi, faced charges alleged to be of a bailable nature, prompting him to seek bail under Section 438 while arrest was imminent or after arrest. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Misc. No. M-20367 of 2008, had held that custodial interrogation was necessary. The petitioner's counsel contended that Section 438 is aimed at non-bailable offences; if the offences are bailable, invoking Section 438 is misconceived. The Supreme Court, in a brief judgment by Justices Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Harjit Singh Bedi, reasoned that Section 438 Cr.P.C. is expressly related to non-bailable offences, and therefore a petition under Section 438 in relation to bailable offences is misconceived, even if the offences themselves are bailable. The Court also noted that the custodial interrogation directed by the High Court was not justified. However, it clarified that if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail, such bail would be considered without being influenced by the High Court's observations. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly, leaving the grant of bail to be determined in the ordinary course, should the petitioner surrender. The judgment emphasizes that bail under Section 438 is not a remedy for bailable offences and that surrender triggers a fresh bail inquiry free from prior observations.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellant submitted that the invocation of Section 438 Cr.P.C. for a bail petition in respect of offences that are alleged to be bailable is misconceived. Since the offences are bailable, the remedy of pre-arrest or post-arrest custodial interrogation under Section 438 is inappropriate. It was contended that the High Court’s direction for custodial interrogation was not justified, as bail remains the proper recourse for such offences and custodial detention cannot be mandated where bail is available. The petitioner further argued that if he surrenders and applies for regular bail, such bail should be considered independently, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations. The relief sought was disposal of the SLP by recognizing the inapplicability of Section 438 to the present bailable offences and directing a proper bail inquiry on surrender.
Contentions of Respondents
No specific arguments from the respondents are reflected in the provided excerpt. The document records the appellant's contentions and the High Court’s conclusions, but does not present separate respondent submissions in this excerpt.
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Joginder @ Jindi v. State of Haryana and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.