Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035205
2024:PHHC:035205
121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12595-2024
Date of decision: 12.03.2024
Balwinder Kaur Bawa ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of order dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Balachaur, District SAS Nagar in case
bearing FIR No.35 dated 20.08.2019 under Section 420 of IPC and Section 13
of Punjab Travel Professional Regulation Act, registered at Police Station
Pojjewal District SBS Nagar (Annexure P-1), whereby, bail bonds/surety bonds
of the petitioner have been cancelled and forfeited to the State followed by non-
bailable warrants of arrest and further quashing of order dated 30.11.2022
(Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Balachaur,
District SAS Nagar, whereby, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed
offender.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends
that the petitioner was on regular bail and she was appearing before the learned
trial Court but on 02.09.2022, she could not appear before the learned
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035205
2024:PHHC:035205
trial Court as wrong date was noted down by her and on the previous date,
neither her counsel nor the clerk of counsel has informed her about the next
date of hearing, on account of which, her bail bonds/surety bonds were
cancelled and forfeited to the State and non-bailable warrants of arrest along
with notice to her surety were issued for 11.10.2022. On 11.10.2022, the
learned trial Court issued proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. against her
for 19.11.2022. On 30.11.2022, the trial Court declared the petitioner as
proclaimed offender. Aggrieved by the said impugned orders dated 02.09.2022
(Annexure P-4) and 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner has approached
this Court by way of instant petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner could not appear on 02.09.2022 due to her act of noting the wrong
date of hearing and, therefore, the non-bailable warrants issued to the petitioner
and, therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner is intentionally
evading her arrest, is erroneous. Further, the trial Court vide order dated
11.10.2022 observed that since non-bailable warrants of arrest have been
received back with a report that the accused evading her arrest intentionally and
concealed herself for apprehension of arrest, she cannot be served through
ordinary process and issued proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.. Ultimately,
vide impugned order dated 30.11.2022, the petitioner has been declared as
proclaimed offender. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set
aside on the ground that the mandate of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has not been
followed in its letter and spirit by the trial Court.
4. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before
the trial Court on each and every date.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035205
2024:PHHC:035205
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab, who is present in Court,
accepts notice for respondent No.1 and supports the order passed by the learned
trial Court by contending that the petitioner did not put in appearance before the
trial Court intentionally and deliberately and, therefore, having left with no
other option, proclamation was issued to secure her presence.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record
of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter
is taken up for final disposal.
8. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance
that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a
healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests
of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible
with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not
suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
9. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court issued
proclamation without recording reasons of its belief that the petitioner has
absconded or is concealing herself. This Court in the judgment passed in
Major Singh @ Major Vs. State of Punjab 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 406;
2023 (2) Law Herald 1506 has held that the Court is first required to record its
satisfaction before issuance of process under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. and non-
recording of the satisfaction itself makes such order suffering from incurable
illegality.
10. The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants or issuance
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035205
2024:PHHC:035205
of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The
petitioner in the present case has herself come forward and has undertaken to
appear before the trial Court on each and every date.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed, without issuing notice to respondent No.2 in order to save
time of the Court and to avoid litigation expenses to be incurred on the part of
respondent No.2 and the impugned orders dated 02.09.2022 (Annexure P-4)
and 30.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) vide which the bail bonds/surety bonds of the
petitioner have been cancelled and forfeited to the State followed by non-
bailable warrants of arrest and the petitioner was declared as proclaimed
offender, respectively, are hereby set aside.
12. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a
period of 15 days from today and on her doing so, she shall be admitted to bail
on her furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial
Court, along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the Poor Patient
Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, for wasting precious time of the Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
12.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035205
4 of 4
