'Juristic Person Cannot Be Put Behind Bar', Amazed How Trial Court Entertained Pre-Arrest Bail Plea Of School: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed as non-maintainable a pre-arrest bail application moved by a school in a fraud case.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari while dismissing the plea said, "...being totally antagonist to the real persons, a juristic person cannot be put behind bars. When no mechanism to put a juristic person behind bars has yet been evolved, therefore, there arose no occasion for a juristic person to apprehend arrest."

A school in Haryana had filed plea seeking anticipatory bail in an FIR pertaining to Sections 120-B (punishment for criminal conspiracy), 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467 (Forgery of valuable security, will, etc), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) of IPC registered at Bhiwani district.

The Court questioned the petitioner's counsel about "the modus which the police officials may adopt to arrest a juristic person," to which he responded that, "the instant motion, on behalf of a juristic person, is not maintainable."

Justice Tiwari highlighted that it is not under dispute that a juristic person is capable of suing, or, being sued only in a case of law, and, even can be prosecuted in a case involving commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, "however, being totally antagonist to the real persons, a juristic person cannot be put behind bars."

"What has further amazed this Court, is that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, has not only entertained the anticipatory bail application of a juristic person, but has even declined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail, on the ground that, no effective investigation can take place by putting the cloak of anticipatory bail around," noted the Court.

Meaning thereby, even the Additional Sessions Judge concerned was of the view that, "custodial interrogation of a juristic person is required," it added.

Stating that the petition is "totally misconceived motion", the Court dismissed the petition, "being non maintainable."

However, in case, the authorized person concerned of the School concerned apprehends arrest, he/she is at liberty to approach the appropriate court of law, it clarified further.

Shailender Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner.

Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 156

SHIVAM SR. SEC. SCHOOL THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR NISHANT TANWAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Click here to read/download the order