Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajesh Mahajan vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 25 July, 2022
CRM-M-17891-2022 1
(204) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17891-2022
Date of Decision:25.07.2022.
Rajesh Mahajan
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. Kanwar Pahul Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. A.K.Khurana, DAG., Punjab.
Ms. Bhavna Kapur, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J(Oral)
The present petition is the third petition filed under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of anticipatory bail in case
bearing FIR No. 220 dated 31.08.2017, under Sections 406, 420 Indian
Penal Code, registered at Police Station City, Kapurthala (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends
that the petitioner had been initially arrested in the aforesaid FIR and was
granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 08.01.2018.
However, as the petitioner failed to appear before the Court on 12.03.2019
hence, non bailable warrants were issued to secure the presence of the
petitioner. He contends that the aforesaid failure on the part of the petitioner
to appear before the Court was on account of noting down a wrong date of
hearing.
Thereafter, a petition seeking anticipatory bail was filed on
06.05.2019 wherein the petitioner was directed to surrender within a period
of one week. The petitioner could not surrender in time as his father had
taken ill due to cancer. The petitioner thus moved an application for seeking
extension of time to surrender. The same was allowed by the Court vide
1 of 3
order dated 25.05.2019 and he was granted a further period of seven days to
surrender.
Despite the aforesaid extension having been granted, the
petitioner could not surrender on account of the ill health of his father.
The petitioner, thereafter moved a second petition seeking
concession of anticipatory bail, however, the same was dismissed vide order
dated 14.08.2019. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the High Court by
filing a petition bearing CRM-M-42450 of 2019 seeking the concession of
anticipatory bail. However, as the petitioner had already been declared as a
proclaimed person by the trial Court vide order dated 26.08.2019, the said
petition was withdrawn on 22.01.2020 with liberty to file a fresh petition on
the same cause of action with better particulars and after raising a challenge
to the order whereby the petitioner had been declared as a proclaimed
person.
The petitioner thereafter raised a challenge to the order dated
26.08.2019 whereby the petitioner had been declared as a proclaimed person
by filing CRM-M-12289 of 2021. However, the said criminal miscellaneous
petition was also dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2021. The present
petition has now been filed by the petitioner for seeking concession of
anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel has argued that the failure of the petitioner to
appear before the trial Court was on account of the ill health of his father
who is suffering from terminal cancer. He further contends that the
petitioner is ready and willing to enter into a settlement and to repay the
entire amount involved in the FIR. In order to show his bona fide, he has
placed reliance on a draft that has been appended along with the instant
petition for a sum of Rs.1 lakh.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant contends that since the petitioner had raised a challenge to the
order dated 26.08.2019, whereby the petitioner had been declared as a
proclaimed person and that the said criminal miscellaneous petition has
already been dismissed by the High Court and earlier petition seeking
anticipatory bail was withdrawn, the present petition seeking concession of
anticipatory bail would be an abuse of the process of law. Furthermore, it
would be against judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
2 of 3
matter of Prem Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another passed an
Criminal Appeal No.1209 of 2021 decided on 21.10.2021 as per which an
anticipatory bail at the behest of proclaimed person would be bereft of any
merit and entitlement to anticipatory bail.
I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties and have gone through the documents appended along
with the instant petition.
Taking into consideration the fact that the concession of
anticipatory bail was initially extended, however, the petitioner failed to
comply with the order passed by the trial Court on two occasions and that
the order whereby the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed person
despite citing the same reasons i.e., the terminal illness of his father, has
already been upheld by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2021 passed in
CRM-M-12289 of 2021, re-examination of the said order in a fresh petition
would be improper. All the aforesaid grounds were available to the
petitioner at the time of raising a challenge to the order declaring the
petitioner as a proclaimed person and the same have not found favour with
the Court. Resultantly, the said grounds cannot lay foundation for seeking
any further concession. The case of the petitioner would be hit by ratio of
the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prem
Shankar Prasad (supra).
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.
[VINOD S. BHARDWAJ]
July 25, 2022 JUDGE
rekha sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No.
3 of 3
