Anticipatory Bail Proclaimed Offender High Court Chandigarh

In this post we will discuss about an a petition by a proclaimed offender for Anticipatory bail wherein the court dismissed the petition and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial Magistrate within seven days.

In this post we will discuss about a Petition filed by a Public Offender for concession of grant of Pre-Arrest bail and how it is dismissed.

Facts of the case

Also Read- proclaimed offender regular bail application – Indian Kanoon

Petitioner

Harjinder Singh

Respondent

Sukhdeep Kaur and another

Bench

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Also Read- S. 82 CrPc Neither Creates Riders Nor Imposes Restrictions In Filing Of Anticipatory Bails By Proclaimed Offenders: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Court

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: 27^thNovember, 2020.

CRM-M-34479 of 2020

Timeline of events

Order passed by the court declaring a Public Offender : 20.7.2019

Date of Decision: 27^th November, 2020.

Also Read- Proclaimed offender regular bail application – Indian Kanoon

Issues and controversies involved

The case has been taken up through Video Conferencing. Petitioner Harjinder Singh was arrayed as one of the accused by his wife Sukhdeep Kaur who had filed a private complainant under Sections 406, 498A, 323, 341, 324, 120-B, 506 IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. On presentation of such complaint the accused including the present petitioner were summoned. The petitioner was summoned through proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. which was duly published, however, he did not appear in the Court within stipulated period, as such was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 20.7.2019. He had approached the Court of Sessions at Ludhiana seeking pre-arrest bail. His such application was assigned to Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana who vide order dated 1.9.2020 had dismissed the application, as such the petitioner has knocked at the door of this Court praying for grant of similar 1 of 3 relief. Notice of that petition has been issued to the State.

Also Read- Sanjay Sarin v. State (Union Territory, Chandigarh) . | Punjab

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner was wrongly declared as a proclaimed person without adopting proper procedure, inasmuch as neither his personal service was got effected nor warrants of arrest were issued against him and straightway proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be published against the present petitioner. He has further contended that the matter has since been compromised between the parties and marriage between the parties has been dissolved by means of decree by mutual consent in terms of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act vide judgment dated 21.7.2020 (Annexure P3), therefore, he be granted concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the complainant admits the factum of compromise between the parties saying that he does not oppose the petition.

ALSO READ- IF PROCLAIMED OFFENDER OR PO BY COURT, THEN READ THIS.

Judgements and settled laws

State of Madhya Pradesh versus Pradeep Sharma 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 269. The relevant portion is highlighted below:

In the light of what is stated above, the impugned orders of the High Court dated 10.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 9996 of 2012 and 15283 of 2012 respectively are set aside. Consequently, the subsequent order of the CJM dated 20.02.2013 in Crime No. 1034 of 2011 releasing the accused on bail after taking them into custody in compliance with the impugned order of the High Court is also set aside.

In view of the same, both the respondents/accused are directed to surrender before the court concerned within a period of two weeks failing which the trial Court is directed to take them into custody and send them to jail.

Also Read- Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisses bail petition

Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730. The relevant portion is highlighted below:

“From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as “absconder”. Normally, when the accused is “absconding” and declared as a “proclaimed offender”, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.” It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

Also Read- Haryana High Court dismisses bail petition of Sumedh Saini

In the case on hand, a perusal of the materials i.e., confessional statements of Sanjay Namdev, Pawan Kumar @ Ravi and Vijay @ MonuBrahambhatt reveals that the respondents administered poisonous substance to the deceased. Further, the statements of witnesses that were recorded and the report of the Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur dated 21.03.2012 have confirmed the existence of poison in milk rabri.

Also Read- Punjab Haryana High Court Latest Order on PO Quashing

Further, it is brought to our notice that warrants were issued on 21.11.2012 for the arrest of the respondents herein. Since they were not available/traceable, a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code was issued on 29.11.2012. The documents (Annexure-P13) produced by the State clearly show that the CJM, Chhindwara, M.P. issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of both the respondents/accused under Section 82 of the Code to answer the complaint on 29.12.2012. All these materials were neither adverted to nor considered by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail and the High Court, without indicating any reason except stating “facts and circumstances of the case”, granted an order of anticipatory bail to both the accused. It is relevant to point out that both the accused are facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.

Also Read-Punjab and Haryana High Court issues bailable warrants for Barnala SSP

In such serious offences, particularly, the respondents/accused being proclaimed offenders, we are unable to sustain the impugned orders of granting anticipatory bail. The High Court failed to appreciate that it is a settled position of law that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail.”

Mehnga Singh versus State of Punjab 2002(1) CLJ (Criminal) 302

ALSO READ- PO (PROCLAIMED OFFENDER) ARRESTED CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI

Findings of court

In the judgment State of Madhya Pradesh versus Pradeep Sharma 2014(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 269 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that when an accused is absconding and has been declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C. then such accused should not be granted anticipatory bail. Further more in a judgment passed by a coordinate Bench in case titled Mehnga Singh versus State of Punjab 2002(1) CLJ (Criminal) 302 it was observed that when an accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender petition against the order under Section 482Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. The accused should first move the Court who had declared him a proclaimed offender and even an objection against validity of proclamation is required to be raised in the first instance before 2 of 3 the Court which issued the proclamation and power under Section 482Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in favour of a person who is absconding or avoiding service.