Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh @ Laddu vs State Of Punjab on 15 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037735
2024:PHHC:037735
123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13474-2024
Date of decision: 15.03.2024
Ranjit Singh @ Laddu ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Bhupinder Kumar Gupta, 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 setting aside of impugned order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-11)
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nakodar, District Jalandhar,
in case bearing No. CHI/381/2019 titled as 'Punjab State Vs. Ranjit Singh alias
Laddu etc.' arising out of FIR No.86 dated 05.08.2019 under Sections
323/341/506/149 of IPC registered at Police Station Lohian, District Jalandhar
Rural, Punjab, vide which the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed
person.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends
that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court,
however, in the month of November, 2023, wife of the petitioner was suffering
with illness and was undergoing treatment and the petitioner had to put his
resources for securing best treatment for his wife. On 28.11.2023, the petitioner
could not put in appearance before the learned trial Court and the trial Court
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037735
2024:PHHC:037735
issued notice to the accused for 02.12.2023. On 02.12.2023, the learned
Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was adjourned to 21.12.2023. On
21.12.2023, the learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner and
forfeited his bail bonds/surety bonds to the State followed by issuance of non-
bailable warrants of arrest for 06.01.2024. On 06.01.2024, the learned trial
Court secured the presence of the petitioner through proclamation. On
09.02.2024, the trial Court declared the petitioner as proclaimed person.
Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-11), the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the non-
bailable warrants issued to the petitioner were never served and, therefore, the
finding of the trial Court that the petitioner is intentionally evading his arrest, is
erroneous. Further, the trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2024, without any
cogent reason issued proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, vide
impugned order dated 09.02.2024, the petitioner has been declared as
proclaimed person. 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.
5. Notice of motion.
6. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab, who is present in Court,
accepts notice for the respondent 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037735
2024:PHHC:037735
other option, proclamation was issued to secure his presence.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record
of the case with his able assistance and 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 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 himself. 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
of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The
petitioner in the present case has himself 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 and the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 (Annexure P-11)
vide which the petitioner was declared as proclaimed person, is hereby set
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037735
2024:PHHC:037735
aside.
12. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a
period of 15 days from today and on his doing so, he shall be admitted to bail
on his 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 District Legal
Services Authority, Jalandhar, for wasting precious time of the Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
15.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037735
4 of 4
