Zinampal Singh @ Jinampal Singh @ Pohli vs State Of Punjab And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 20171 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Zinampal Singh @ Jinampal Singh @ Pohli vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 13 November, 2024

RAJ KUMAR
2024.11.14

On the other hand, learned State counsel, has submitted that

the petitioner despite the proclamation had failed to appear before the

trial Court and has rightly been declared proclaimed person, and in

addition the petitioner is evading the process of court which is highly

deprecated on his part. He also asserts that non non-complying complying with the

orders of the court shows that he has no respect for the courts' order and a

person who obstructs the process of law and evades from it does not

deserves any concession.

Heard eard respective counsels for the parties parties.

A person cannot be said to be "abscond" or "evade" the

execution of warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue

of the warrant. Dependence can be made on the judicial dictum rendered

in the case of "M.S.R. M.S.R. Gundappa v. State of Karnataka" (1977 Cr LJ

NOC 187),

187), wherein it was held that a person who had gone abroad even

before the issue of the warrant of arrest cannot be said to be absconding

or concealing himself with the intention to disrupt the exec execution ution of that

warrant.

Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment of this Court

rendered in CRM-M-1513-2009 CRM 2009 tiled as ""Mehar Mehar Singh And Anr. vs

State of Punjab"

Punjab" wherein it was held as under:

under:-

"In In the present case, since the petitioners were already residing ing in Canada before the registration of FIR in question i.e. since the year 1997, there was no occasion for them to conceal themselves or abscond. A perusal of order dated 7-10-2008 2008 (Annexure P P-10) and order dated 21-12--

2007 (Annexure P- 4) does not revea reveall that the petitioners were ever attempted to be served in Canada especially when there was no material on record that the petitioners had left the country after the registration of FIR in question with a view to abscond or conceal themselves. Rather in th thee inquiries conducted by the police, the petitioners were found to be innocent because the alleged papers in question were prepared in Canada. Thus, the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders in violation of Section 82, Criminal Procedure Code. Accordingly, ordingly, the impugned order dated 77--

10-2008 (Annexure P-10),

10), whereby the petitioners were declared proclaimed offenders, is set aside."