Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahi Ram vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 23 April, 2024
Author: Karamjit Singh
Bench: Karamjit Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054955
CRM-M-19015-2024 [1] 2024:PHHC:054955
125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19015-2024
Date of decision: 23.04.2024
Sahi Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, DAG, Haryana.
****
KARAMJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of order dated 08.07.2016 Annexure P-1 passed by the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa whereby the petitioner has been declared as
proclaimed person in criminal case having FIR No.362 dated 16.05.2015
under Sections 15/27A/25 of NDPS Act, Police Station Sirsa City District
Sirsa.
2. The brief facts of the case are that police received secret
information on 16.05.2015 and then reached the disclosed place where one
Bolero pickup was found lying abandoned and on checking of the said
vehicle, 5 plastic bags each having 28 kg of poppy husk were recovered.
During investigation, Sarwan, Rakesh and Ram Kishan @ Bhalu were
arrested and they faced trial and finally acquitted vide judgment dated
17.09.2021 Annexure P-4.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054955
CRM-M-19015-2024 [2] 2024:PHHC:054955
3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR in this case
was registered against unknown persons and that petitioner has nothing to
do with the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that the petitioner was
not in knowledge about registration of any such FIR as he was not named in
the same. It is further submitted that he never received any
notice/summons/warrants issued by any Court with regard to pendency of
the aforesaid criminal case. It is further submitted that the accused who
faced trial were acquitted on ground of non compliance of provisions of
Sections 41, 42 and 52A of NDPS Act and the trial Court further held that
the concerned investigating officers were not competent to investigate the
matter as they were holding ORP rank of Assistant Sub Inspector and in this
regard, the trial Court referred to judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in Bikkar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 16. Counsel
for the petitioner further submits that in the given circumstances there are
very bleak chances of conviction of the petitioner in the present case as he is
similarly situated to the persons who were already acquitted vide judgment
Annexure P-4. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even
otherwise the impugned order was not passed in accordance with the
provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. So, prayer is made that the present petition
be allowed and petitioner be allowed to appear before the trial Court to face
trial.
4. The present petition is resisted by the State counsel who
submits that proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C were conducted by the
Court concerned and there is no illegality in the same. It is further submitted
that the petitioner evaded his arrest and was finally declared as proclaimed
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054955
CRM-M-19015-2024 [3] 2024:PHHC:054955
person vide impugned order Annexure P-1. It is further submitted that
petitioner should surrender before the Court concerned to face trial.
However, the State counsel has not disputed the fact that co-accused who
faced trial were acquitted vide judgment dated 17.09.2021 Annexure P-4. It
is further submitted that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the
parties.
6. As per Annexure P-2, FIR in this case was registered against
unknown persons and recovery of commercial quantity of poppy husk was
effected from Bolero Pickup which was found parked. Later on Sarwan,
Rakesh and Ram Kishan @ Bhalu along with petitioner and one Sunil
Kumar were nominated as accused. The police failed to arrest the petitioner
while co-accused Sarwan, Rakesh and Ram Kishan @ Bhalu were arrested
and they faced trial and were acquitted vide judgment dated 17.09.2021
Annexure P-4. The State counsel has admitted that State did not file any
appeal against the said judgment. As per judgment Annexure P-4, it appears
that trial Court while referring to decision of Division Bench of this Court
in Bikkar Singh's case (supra) held that the police officials who
investigated the case were not competent to do so, as they were not holding
regular rank of Assistant Sub Inspector. In case, the petitioner is allowed to
appear before the trial Court to face trial, he is also to be treated on parity
with co-accused Sarwan, Rakesh and Ram Kishan @ Bhalu, as far as
incompetency of the investigating officers is concerned. Further, as per
counsel for petitioner, Sahi Ram was not in knowledge about of pendency
of any such case as he was not named in the FIR.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:054955
CRM-M-19015-2024 [4] 2024:PHHC:054955
7. The purpose of provision of Section 82 Cr.P.C is to procure the
presence of accused to enable him to face trial. In the present case, it
appears that petitioner is willing to surrender before the Court concerned, in
order to face trial.
8. In light of the above discussion, coupled with the fact that co-
accused who faced trial are already acquitted vide judgment Annexure P-4,
no purpose will be served by sustaining the impugned order and the same is
hereby set aside with direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Court
concerned within next 4 weeks. Needless to observe that nothing in this order
shall be treated as expression of any opinion on merits of the case.
9. However, this order will be subject to payment of cost of
Rs.3,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the District Legal Services
Authority, concerned.
23.04.2024 (KARAMJIT SINGH)
Yogesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
