Mandeep Singh vs State Of Haryana
2021 Latest Caselaw 459 P&H

CRM-M-4109-2021 (O&M)                                                        -1-




     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                          CRM-M-4109-2021 (O&M)
                                          Date of Decision: February 08, 2021
                                          (Heard through VC)

Mandeep Singh alias Rubal


                                                                   ... Petitioner

                                        Versus


State of Haryana

                                                                 ... Respondent

                                           CRM-M-5681-2021 (O&M)

Mandeep Singh alias Rubal

                                                                   ... Petitioner

                                        Versus


State of Haryana

                                                                 ... Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR


Present:-   Mr. Rohit Kaushik, Advocate
            for the petitioner.


JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

1. This order of mine shall dispose of two petitions mentioned

above . The former petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of

1 of 4

CRM-M-4109-2021 (O&M) -2-

Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 443 dated

30.12.2010 registered under Sections 302, 394, 120-B IPC and Section 25

of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Shahabad, District Kurukshetra

while the latter has been filed seeking quashing of order dated 17.12.2013

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in the same FIR

whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender.

2. The FIR has been registered on the statement of complainant

Hukam Singh on the allegations that his brother was beaten up by four boys

which resulted in his death. On the culmination of the investigation, report

under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against five persons. The

Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra by his order dated 21.02.2014

acquitted four accused persons on the ground that the prosecution had failed

to discharge its burden. However, Mandeep Singh alias Rubal, petitioner

herein had been declared as proclaimed offender by the said Court on an

earlier occasion i.e. on 17.12.2013. The petitioner herein seeks to challenge

the said order on the ground that he had been falsely implicated in the said

matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would submit that in

fact after the arrest of the petitioner, he had been allowed regular bail by the

Court below on 16.12.2011 and subsequent thereto, on meeting the

complainant he had been assured that he had wrongly been implicated. The

petitioner thereafter left the village and was unaware of the proceedings

which continued therein. It is further argued that the statement of the

complainant which was recorded did not mention him as one of the

2 of 4

CRM-M-4109-2021 (O&M) -3-

perpetrators of the crime which would leave credence to the effect that he

had been informed by the complainant that he had no role to play. Learned

counsel prays for stay of his arrest under the said FIR on the ground that all

the other co-accused already stand acquitted and that the complainant had

not named him as perpetrator of the crime in the statement given. It is

further prayed that the P.O. order be quashed since he had no idea that the

proceedings were continuing despite the fact that the complainant had not

named him as an accused in his statement.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. P. P. Chahar, DAG, Haryana appearing through the medium

of video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He

would contend that the petitioner had absconded after having been granted regular

bail and did not put in an appearance despite the fact that the trial was proceeding.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused

the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra

whereby other four co-accused persons already stand acquitted for lack of

any evidence against them. In view of the facts that other co-accused stand

acquitted and the petitioner has not been named by the complainant in his

statement, I deem it appropriate to dispose of both the petitions and order to

keep the impugned order dated 17.12.2013 in abeyance by staying the arrest

of the petitioner for a period of two weeks to enable him to appear before

the trial Court and move an appropriate application for having the impugned

order set aside, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance

with law. He shall be admitted to interim bail to the satisfaction of the Court

3 of 4

CRM-M-4109-2021 (O&M) -4-

till disposal of his application. Ordered accordingly.

7. Needless to say that in case the petitioner fails to surrender

before the trial Court within the specified time, any interim protection

allowed to him by this Court shall stand automatically vacated.

February 08, 2021                                    (JAISHREE THAKUR)
seema                                                     JUDGE

                   Whether speaking/reasoned                  Yes
                   Whether reportable                         Yes/No




                               4 of 4