Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurbir Singh Alias Guri vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065267
CRM-M-30903-2023 (O & M)
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-30903-2023 (O & M)
Date of Decision:09.05.2024
Gurbir Singh @ Guri
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. H.P. Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Gur Amrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is for quashing of order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, District SAS Nagar (Annexure P-4) vide
which the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender.
2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No.91 dated
17.03.2019 under Sections 379, 411, 473, 171 IPC and Section 25 of the
Arms Act, Police Station Kharar, District SAS Nagar, came to be
registered against Gurbir Singh @ Guri (petitioner), Jasbir Singh @
Rana, Amit Kumar, Jimmi @ Jhatta and Gurpreet Singh @ Laddi on the
basis of secret information.
3. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, a naka was laid and a
Silver Esteem car was seen coming from the front. It was signalled to
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065267
CRM-M-30903-2023 (O & M)
::2::
stop. The driver of the car disclosed his name as Gurbinder Singh @
Gurbir Singh @ Guri and the other occupants of the car disclosed their
names as Jimmi @ Jhatta and Amit Kumar. From the search of the car,
one light blue beacon, two swords, two datts, fake number plate bearing
No.PB-10-S-9787 and blue beacon were recovered and were taken into
police possession. Gurbir Singh @ Guri, Jimmi @ Jhatta and Amit
Kumar were arrested on 17.03.2009. The other accused came to be
arrested on 09.06.2010. The report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was
presented on 27.10.2012 before the Court of competent jurisdiction under
Sections 379, 411, 473 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. However,
Gurpreet Singh @ Laddi was declared a proclaimed offender vide order
dated 31.10.2011 i.e. before the presentation of the challan.
4. As the petitioner was absconding pursuant to the grant of
bail, he was declared a proclaimed offender on 22.07.2014. Meanwhile,
the Trial proceeded against co-accused, namely, Jasbir Singh @ Rana,
Amit Kumar and Jimmy @ Jhatta who were acquitted vide a judgment
dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Kharar.
5. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist
Class, Kharar, whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed
offender.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065267
CRM-M-30903-2023 (O & M)
::3::
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has
been a violation of Section 82 Cr.P.C. The proclamation was issued on
28.04.2014 for 24.05.2014 and therefore, a clear period of 30 days had
not been provided for appearance. In fact, the petitioner had been
arrested in other cases in which cases he remained in custody and was
facing Trial. It was in that situation that he was unable to appear and
therefore, declared a proclaimed offender. He, therefore, contends that
the impugned order (Annexure P-4) was liable to be quashed.
7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
contends that the petitioner was arrested on 17.03.2009, granted bail and
only then proclamation order was issued on 28.04.2014. Therefore, he
was aware of the pendency of the FIR in which he stood arrested and was
granted bail. It did not lie in his mouth to show that 30 days clear period
had not been given to him to appear in the Court. Further, the pendency
of other cases or his incarceration in those cases was of little relevance.
The instant petition had been filed only in July, 2023 much after
proceedings had culminated in the other cases registered against him.
Even otherwise, nothing prevented him from appearing in the
proceedings emanating out of the present FIR No.91 dated 17.03.2009,
even though, he was in custody in other cases. Quite apparently, the
attempt was to evade the process of the law.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:065267
CRM-M-30903-2023 (O & M)
::4::
9. A perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner was
arrested on 17.03.2009, was granted bail and was declared a proclaimed
offender on 22.07.2014. The contention of the petitioner that 30 days'
clear notice was not given to him is belied from the record inasmuch as
the proclamation was issued on 28.04.2014 for 24.05.2014 but the order
declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender was passed only on
22.07.2014. Therefore, the petitioner had ample opportunity to appear
before the concerned Court. Needless to say, the petitioner was aware of
the pendency of the FIR in question, he having been arrested and having
been released on bail thereafter. Further, merely because he was an
accused in other cases and in custody in some of those cases did not in
any manner, prevent the petitioner from joining the proceedings arising
out of the present FIR No.91 dated 17.03.2009. In fact, he could have
very well been taken on production warrants to face Trial in the instant
case. He, however, for obvious reasons chose not to do so leading to the
passing of the impugned order dated 22.07.2014. In fact, this petition
itself has been filed 09 years after the petitioner was declared a
proclaimed offender.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present petition.
Therefore, the same stands dismissed.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
May 09, 2024 JUDGE
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
