Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amar Pal vs State Of Punjab on 12 March, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
Crl.M.No.M-4566 of 2012(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-4566 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: March 12, 2012
Amar Pal
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.JBS Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
.....
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.52, dated 26.5.1996, under Sections 454, 380, 411 IPC, registered at Police Station Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Briefly stated, the present case was registered on the statement of one Pushpa Rani. During investigation, co-accused Satnam Singh was arrested, who suffered a confessional statement that he alongwith Jagtar Singh and present petitioner-accused committed theft in the house of Pushpa Rani on 26.5.1996. Jagtar Singh was arrested in another FIR bearing No.106 and he also suffered confessional statement to the same effect. However, present petitioner-accused remained absconding. He was Crl.M.No.M-4566 of 2012(O&M) -2- declared as proclaimed offender on 9.1.1999. Co-accused faced trial, whereas petitioner-accused remained absconding. Though, co-accused were acquitted, however, present petitioner accused did not face trial. After their acquittal, the present petitioner filed application for anticipatory bail. He remained absconding for more than 12 years from the Court proceedings.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- accused that petitioner had already left abroad before he was declared proclaimed offender. However, no such document has been placed on record either before learned Additional Sessions Judge or before this Court to show that proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender were in any way illegal, nor order declaring proclaimed offender has been challenged. Only application for anticipatory bail has been filed. Law is well settled that an absconder or a proclaimed offender is not entitled for extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Petitioner remained absconding for a period of 12 years.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner- accused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Amar Pal for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
12.3.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge