[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amit Dua vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2026

                          CRM-M-15318-2026                       -1-

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                   AT CHANDIGARH

                          212                                            CRM-M-15318-2026
                                                                         Date of Decision: 27.04.2026


                          AMIT DUA                                                   ....Petitioner

                                                            Versus

                          STATE OF HARYANA                                           ....Respondent


                          CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

                          Present:      Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                        Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

                                                    *****

                          RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 B.N.S.S.

read with Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in

FIR No. 152 dated 10.04.2025 u/s 209 BNS (174-A IPC) registered at Police

Station Karnal Civil Lines, District Karnal.

2. Succinctly stated, facts leading to the registration of present

FIR are that in complaint bearing NACT No. 6006 dated 10.09.2018 titled

as "Surinder Kakkar v. Amit Dua" was filed against the petitioner, wherein

the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 30.10.2023

and ultimately the present FIR was directed to be registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

became aware of the aforementioned proceedings only upon receiving a

telephonic message from Civil Lines Police Station, Karnal, informing him

that FIR No. 152 dated 10.04.2025 under Section 209 of the BNS had been

registered against him. The petitioner further submits that, left with no other

option, he immediately approached this Hon'ble Court by filing CRM-M-

authenticity of this order/judgment

26974 of 2025, titled "Amit Dua v. State of Haryana and Another", seeking

quashing of the original complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the proclamation

order and the present FIR. He contends that, since no interim protection was

granted in his favour, he approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge

for the grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be dismissed. He further

submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation if the

concession of anticipatory bail is extended to him. Hence, he prays that the

present petition be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has opposed the

present petition and submitted that the same is wholly misconceived and not

maintainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the petitioner was duly

declared a proclaimed offender by the competent Court vide order dated

30.10.2023 in complaint bearing NACT No. 6006 dated 10.09.2018, and the

registration of the present FIR is a natural and lawful consequence of such

declaration. The proceedings leading to the proclamation order were

conducted in accordance with law, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to

take advantage of his own absence and non-appearance before the trial

Court. Learned State counsel further submits that the plea of the petitioner

that he had no knowledge of the proceedings is false and untenable, as due

process under law was followed before declaring him a proclaimed offender.

It is argued that the petitioner has deliberately evaded the process of law and

remained absconding, thereby obstructing the course of justice. The

registration of the FIR under Section 209 of the BNS is, therefore, justified

and cannot be termed as an abuse of the process of law. She further submits

that even in the proceedings for quashing of complaint, proclamation order

authenticity of this order/judgment

and the present FIR, no stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner. She

contends that since, there is no stay on the order declaring the petitioner a

proclaimed offender, as such the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary

relief of anticipatory bail from this Court in view of law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8

SCC 730; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC

171; Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 8 SCC 282 etc.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the

record, this Court is of the considered view that no case for grant of

anticipatory bail is made out. It is an admitted position that the petitioner

stands declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 30.10.2023, and the

said order continues to operate, having neither been stayed nor set aside by

any competent Court. The status of a proclaimed offender reflects deliberate

evasion of the process of law, and such conduct disentitles the petitioner

from seeking equitable and discretionary relief from this Court.

6. In Lavesh (supra), (Para 10), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

as under:

"(10). ... Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and

declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of

granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person

against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding

or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant

and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82

of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail."

7. In Pradeep Sharma, (supra), Para 10, Supreme Court placing

reliance upon Lavesh (supra), held that it is clear from the above decision

authenticity of this order/judgment

that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of

Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

8. In Abhishek (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying

upon its earlier decision in case of Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar

and Anr.: (2021) SCC OnLine SC 955; has held that when accused is

absconding and declared as proclaimed offender, no question arises of

giving him benefit of section 438 CrPC, 1973. The releant part of the order

is reproduced as under:

"21. As regards the implication of proclamation having been

issued against the appellant, we have no hesitation in making

it clear that any person, who is declared as an 'absconder'

and remains out of reach of the investigating agency and

thereby stands directly at conflict with law, ordinarily,

deserves no concession or indulgence. By way of

reference, we may observe that in relation to the indulgence

of pre-arrest bail in terms of section 438 CrPC, 1973 this

Court has repeatedly said that when an accused is

absconding and is declared as proclaimed offender, there is

no question of giving him the benefit of section 438 CrPC,

1973. For example, Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar

and Anr.: (2021) SCC OnLine SC 955. What has been

observed and said in relation to section 438 CrPC, 1973

applies with more vigour to the extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The

submissions on behalf of the appellant for consideration of

his case because of application of stringent provisions

authenticity of this order/judgment

impinging his fundamental rights does not take away the

impact of the blameworthy conduct of the appellant. Any

claim towards fundamental rights also cannot be justifiably

made without the person concerned himself adhering to and

submitting to the process of law."