Dharampal vs State Of Punjab
2021 Latest Caselaw 1797 P&H

CRM-M-20463-2021                                                        -1-

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                                CRM-M-20463-2021 (O&M)
                                Date of decision: 21.05.2021

Darampal
                                                              ...Petitioner
                   Versus

State of Punjab

                                                            ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:    Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                *****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

Case taken up through video conferencing.

This petition for pre-arrest bail has been filed by petitioner

Darampal, an accused in FIR No.237 dated 11.09.2014, for an offence

under Section 25 of Arms Act, registered with Police Station Dera

Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, who had absented from the

proceedings and was declared as a proclaimed offender by the trial

Court on 04.07.2017. Though absence of the petitioner from the Court

resulting in his being declared as proclaimed offender on 04.07.2017

and till date has been tried to be explained for the reason that it was not

intentional but on account of outbreak of corona disease but that

Corona had surfaced in late 2019 and it was unheard of in the year

2016, 2017 or 2018 even. Therefore, the explanation rendered for

absence from the Court by the petitioner/accused is least convincing.

1 of 3

As regards the plea taken that the procedure adopted for

declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender was defective, the same

also does not come out to be convincing. Even otherwise, the

petitioner/accused should surrender before the trial Court and raise

such like pleas there. In Mehnga Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2002 (2)

RCR (Criminal) 501, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed

that when an accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender, a

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., impugning that order is not

maintainable and accused should first move the Court which declared

him a proclaimed offender and even an objection against validity of

proclamation is required to be raised in the first instance before the

Court which issued the proclamation and that power under Section 482

Cr.P.C., is not to be exercised in favour of a person, who is absconding

or avoiding service.

In this case, the petitioner does not specifically challenge

the order declaring him as a proclaimed offender. Even otherwise, the

Apex Court in judgment State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep

Sharma, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 269 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, he should not be granted

anticipatory bail.

Therefore, the petition is doomed for failure and is

dismissed accordingly. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the

trial Court and move application for regular bail, which be decided by

2 of 3

the trial Court as per law.

21.05.2021                                          (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k                                                 JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned :      Yes          No
             Whether Reportable :             Yes          No




                                 3 of 3