Ramandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 15255 P&H

CRM-M-9558-2022                                                        -1-

111 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH
                           CRM-M-9558-2022
                           Date of Decision: 29.11.2022
RAMANDEEP KAUR                           ......... Petitioner
                       Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB                           ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :    Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

       Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
            ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

Through instant petition under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated

11.06.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Patti

whereby the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed person in case

FIR No.159 dated 03.07.2017 (Annexure P-1) under Section 420 and 34

IPC of 1860 registered at P.S. Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that co-

accused-Pragat Singh was granted anticipatory bail by learned ASJ, Tarn

Taran, vide order dated 13.12.2018. The petitioner has been declared

proclaimed person under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C without compliance of

procedure prescribed under aforesaid sections. The petitioner could not join

proceedings because petitioner was unaware of the proceedings. The

petitioner left for France on 27.05.2016 and FIR was registered in 2017.

The petitioner till date has not come to India. The petitioner is willing to

pay costs of Rs.25,000/-.

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

1 of 3

prescribed, prime facie available evidences, history & 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.

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

2 of 3

justice;

ii) The Petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of

courts as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs.

25,000/-;

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 left India in 2016 and present FIR came

to be registered in 2017;

vi) The petitioner is accused of commission of

compoundable offence.

vii) Trial is pending since 2017 and petitioner is ready to to

fact 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 29.12.2022 and on his

doing so, the Trial Court shall release him on bail, on his furnishing bail

bond/surety bond to its satisfaction. The petitioner, as agreed shall pay costs

of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to District Legal Services Authorities, Tarn Taran.

Disposed of.

                                                  ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                         JUDGE
29.11.2022
Ali


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




                                 3 of 3