Rajinder Singh Alias Rajinder ... vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 9580 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:086022




CRM-M-32221-2023 (O&M)                          -1-           2023:PHHC:086022


                           105
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-32221-2023 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Decision: 07.07.2023


Rajinder Singh @ Rajinder Kumar
                                                                   ....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State of Punjab

                                                                .....Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:     Ms. SumanKumari, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, DAG, Punjab.

                              ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR

No.44 dated 14.07.2019, under Sections 61/1/14 of Excise Act, registered at

Police Station Ghanaur, District Patiala, Punjab.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case and the other co-accused

namely Hardeep Kumar @ Deepu has been granted bail by this Court. She

submitted that although the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed

offender but the order of declaring him as a proclaimed offender was not in

accordance with law and, therefore, the petitioner may be considered for the

grant of anticipatory bail.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Sarabjit Singh Cheema, DAG, Punjab

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:086022

CRM-M-32221-2023 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:086022

has submitted that he has received an advance copy of the present petition

and he has also sought instructions from the concerned police official. He

submitted that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the fact

that the petitioner has already been declared as a proclaimed offender on

06.05.2023 and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma [2014(2) SCC 171] the

petitioner is not entitled for the grant of anticipatory bail. He submitted that

after the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed offender even an FIR under

Section 174-A IPC was registered against the petitioner.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned State counsel has raised preliminary objection with

regard to the maintainability of the present petition in view of the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep

Sharma (Supra). The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is re-

produced as under:-

"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as "absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has already been declared as a

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:086022

CRM-M-32221-2023 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:086022

proclaimed offender in the present case itself on 06.05.2023 and as per the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid P.O order has not been

challenged in any Court. There are no strong reasons given by the learned

counsel for the petitioner as to why the present petition should be

entertained despite the fact that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed

offender and therefore the prayer for the grant of anticipatory bail is not

maintainable.

7. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

8. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as

an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose

of deciding the present petition only.

s




07.07.2023                                (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh                                             JUDGE
          Whether speaking                      :   Yes/No
          Whether reportable                    :   Yes/No




                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:086022

                                       3 of 3