Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxx vs Xxxxx on 17 April, 2023
2023:PHHC:053135
CRM-M-58270-2022 (O&M) -1-
303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-58270-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 17.04.2023
Khatuni ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM:-HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, Asst. A.G. Haryana.
AMARJOT BHATTI, J. (Oral)
CRM-48410-2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-58270-2022
The petitioner - Khatuni has filed this petition under Section 438
Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 127 dated 31.03.2011,
under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC, registered at Police
Station Sohna, Gurugram.
The facts of the case are that the complainant Aash Mohammad
gave his statement to the police that his sister i.e. the victim, aged about 19
years was married to Momin on 20.12.2009. They had given sufficient
dowry at the time of marriage. However, Momin, his mother Khatuni,
father Ilu, brother Asid, sister Abida and uncle Rehmad were unhappy with
the dowry articles and pressurized his sister to bring Rs. 1 lac and a car. On
30.03.2011, they were informed that his sister was missing from the house.
They along with the Sarpanch of village Mehmood Ulhasan and other
LALIT SHARMA respectables reached the village Kulhiaka. The family of Momin misled
2023.04.20 10:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:053135
CRM-M-58270-2022 (O&M) -2-
them. The dead body of his sister was recovered from the area near Satlaka
Canal. His sister was either killed by the accused persons or she was
forced to die. With these allegations, present FIR has been registered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that she is falsely
implicated in this case. She is 67 years old. Earlier, during investigation in
the aforesaid FIR, Momin was arrested on 17.04.2011 and her husband Ilu
was arrested on 23.05.2011, who has now expired. She was never arrested
in this case. After investigation, the trial had started and ultimately,
Momin and Ilu were acquitted vide judgment dated 20.11.2012, which is
Annexure P-2. Now, it is alleged that she was declared proclaimed
offender on 05.06.2012 and therefore, she is apprehending her arrest. She
was never served nor she is aware of any proclamation proceedings carried
out regarding her. Now, it is alleged that she was declared proclaimed
offender on 05.06.2012 and the police is trying to arrest her after a period
of about 10 years. She is ready to face the trial and abide by the terms of
bail order. It is prayed that her anticipatory bail application may be
allowed.
Bail application is opposed by learned counsel representing the
State. It is claimed that the present petitioner was declared proclaimed
offender on 05.06.2012 and proclaimed offender challan is presented in the
Court on 06.10.2012. It is conceded that the record regarding declaring her
as a proclaimed offender is not available in the record room of the Courts.
It is alleged that since, she was a proclaimed offender, therefore, she is not
entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. So far as the other co-
accused are concerned, it is conceded that they were acquitted by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide judgment dated 20.11.2012,
LALIT SHARMA which is Annexure R-1.
2023.04.20 10:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:053135
CRM-M-58270-2022 (O&M) -3-
I have considered the arguments and have gone through the
record carefully. It is the case of petitioner that she was never summoned
in the aforesaid FIR nor anybody procured her presence. She further
alleged that she is not aware that she was declared proclaimed offender on
05.06.2012. The status report filed by the State further clarifies that there
is no record available in the judicial record room declaring the present
petitioner as proclaimed offender. So far as the State is concerned, they
have failed to produce any document from the police file to establish that
the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender by filing application in the
Court and by following the prescribed procedure. The effort was also made
by this Court to procure the record of proceedings vide which the present
petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. I have received the report of
learned District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram vide letter bearing No.
802/C-29 dated 20.02.2023 and another report of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)-
cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurugram bearing No. 171 dated
27.03.2023, duly forwarded by learned District and Sessions Judge,
Gurugram vide letter bearing No. 1349/C.29 dated 29.03.2023 vide which
it is clear that the record regarding declaring the present petitioner as
proclaimed offender could not be traced out. Thus, the same could not be
produced in this Court. Considering the aforesaid letters, the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram is directed that the aforesaid record
vide which Khatuni was declared proclaimed offender be traced out under
the supervision of concerned Judge, who is Incharge of the record room
and in case of failure to trace out the record, then to follow the proper
procedure for its reconstruction and to hold an inquiry against the official
concerned who is responsible for the missing of judicial record as per
LALIT SHARMA
2023.04.20 10:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
2023:PHHC:053135
CRM-M-58270-2022 (O&M) -4-
rules.
On the merits of the present anticipatory bail application, it
cannot be ignored that the other two accused namely Momin and Ilu were
acquitted of the charge framed against them in the aforesaid FIR vide
judgment dated 20.11.2012, Annexure P-2/Annexure R-1. It is claimed in
the status report that the challan qua the present petitioner being
proclaimed offender was presented on 06.10.2012. The present
anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner on 10.12.2022
i.e. after a gap of more than 10 years. The present petitioner is ready to
face the trial and abide by the terms of bail order. Therefore, considering
these facts, the present anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner
- Khatuni is allowed. She be not arrested. She is directed to surrender
before the trial Court within three weeks from today and be released on
bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Judge concerned.
The petition is accordingly, allowed.
Copy of this order be also sent to learned District and Sessions
Judge, Gurugram for compliance.
17.04.2023 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
LALIT SHARMA
2023.04.20 10:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
