Amandeep Sharma vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 15608 P&H

      CRM-M-38330-2022                                                  -1-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

111                                          CRM-M-38330-2022
                                             Date of Decision: 30.11.2022


AMANDEEP SHARMA                                                      ...Petitioner
                                 Versus

UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH                                       ...Respondent

Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:     Mr. Jimmy Singla, Advocate,
             for the petitioner

             Mr. Yuvraj Rathore, Advocate, for
             Mr. Y.S. Rathore, Addl. PP, U.T., Chandigarh

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner through instant petition is seeking quashing of order

dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure P-2) whereby learned JMIC, Chandigarh has

declared the petitioner proclaimed person in FIR No.74 dated 19.03.2012

(Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC,

registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not

named in the FIR. The petitioner was released on bail and thereafter regularly

appearing before the trial Court, however, could not appear on 21.12.2021 and

trial Court cancelled his bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants for his

arrest. Learned trial Court vide order dated 29.07.2022 has declared the

petitioner as proclaimed person. The petitioner is an illiterate person and is not

involved in any other offence. The petitioner is ready to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-

in favour of District Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh.

Notice of motion.

1 of 3

Mr. Yuvraj Rathore, Advocate, Addl. PP, U.T., Chandigarh accepts

notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that State has no objection if

the present petition is disposed of, subject to costs.

Intent of arrest and reason of denial of bail is to secure the

appearance of the accused at the time of trial. A person who seeks to be liberated

must take judgment and serve sentence in the event of his conviction. The nature

of the crime charged, severity of punishment prescribed, prime facie available

evidences, history & amp; background of the accused may indicate that any

amount of bond and surety is not going to secure presence of accused, at the time

of conviction.

The object of arrest is neither punitive nor preventive. Detention or

arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right of personal liberty

guaranteed by article 21 but also freedom guaranteed by article 19(1) of our

Constitution. Life of every human being is most precious gift of God and

everyone has very limited span of life which cannot be spoiled on account of

incompetence, personal grudge, vengeance of someone; or brutal, illegal,

unethical action of the State machinery. Except habitual offender, commoners

living simple life after arrest lose self-respect and confidence within himself as

well State. It has become very common to put criminal law in motion even

though dispute involved is purely contractual or civil in nature. Many times

arrest entails deprivation of source of income of entire family besides forever

stigma in a closely knit society like ours. There is neither mechanism to

compensate a man who is later on found innocent nor acquittal can return

valuable time, energy, status, future of family members especially children

which is lost on account of incarceration of bread earner of the family.

Imprisonment before conviction is a sort of punishment especially when rate of

conviction in our country is abysmally low.

2 of 3

Keeping in mind:

(i) The object of cancellation of bond or declaration of anyone as

proclaimed offender/person is to secure his presence. The petitioner

has come forward to face trial and undertakes to appear before trial

court on each and every date, thus ,his presence would meet ends of

justice;

(ii) The petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of courts

as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(iii) The petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the

satisfaction of the trial court;

(iv) The petitioner is not involved in any other offence;

(v) The petitioner on many dates has appeared appeared before

trial court;

(vi) Trial is pending since 2012 and petitioner is ready to face

trial, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to prosecution or

complainant;

this court is of the considered opinion that present petition needs to

be allowed, and accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to

appear before Trial Court on or before 23.12.2022 and on his doing so, the trial

court shall release him on bail on his furnishing bail bonds. The petitioner, as

agreed, shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the District Legal Services Authorities,

Chandigarh.

Disposed of in above terms.

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 02.12.2022 mohit kumar

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3