Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 18 November, 2011
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
Criminal Misc.-M No. 23402 of 2011 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.-M No. 23402 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.11.2011
Devinder Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. J.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. D.P.S. Kahlon, Advocate for the complainant.
......
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 114 dated 8.5.2010 registered under Sections 304-B/34 IPC at Police Station City Rajpura, District Patiala.
While issuing notice of motion on 5.8.2011, following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner were noticed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that FIR in the present case was registered on account of death of daughter-in-law of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was also arrayed as one of the accused. He made representation to the Director General of Police, Punjab, to get fair enquiry conducted into the incident on 18.11.2010. Prior to that the petitioner had been declared proclaimed offender on 15.10.2010. She had been appearing before the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Patiala during the process of enquiry being conducted by him. Vide his communication dated Criminal Misc.-M No. 23402 of 2011 2 14.12.2010 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala, he opined that the petitioner was not involved in the crime.
The involvement of the petitioner in the crime is one part. The another important part is as to whey the person who had been declared a proclaimed offender by the court was not taken into custody when she appeared before the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Patiala. It is not a case in isolation. There are other cases as well which came to the notice of this court where despite the fact that the accused in a case had been declared proclaimed offender but he had been appearing before the police authorities in the same case or in some other enquiry, but was not taken into custody. This is an apparent dereliction of duty by the law enforcing agency."
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed pre-arrest bail petition in this Court as well as before Hon'ble the Supreme Court but the aforesaid fact has not been mentioned by the petitioner in the present petition.
Affidavit of Gurdeep Singh PPS, Superintendent of Police, Headquarter, Patiala, the then Superintendent of Police (Detective), dated 27.8.2011 has been filed in response to the directions issued by this Court on 5.8.2011, while issuing notice of motion. He admitted that the petitioner was not arrested when she appeared before him, despite being a proclaimed offender.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition, as the petitioner will surrender before the court below and seek regular bail.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Even if this petition is permitted to be withdrawn, but this Court cannot shut its eyes to the misconduct and negligence on the part of the officer of the level of Superintendent of Police where admittedly, the Criminal Misc.-M No. 23402 of 2011 3 proclaimed offender was not arrested by him when she appeared before him in some enquiry pertaining to a case. He has categorically admitted in the affidavit filed by him that the petitioner was not arrested inadvertently. The fact that the petitioner had been declared proclaimed offender was specifically brought to his notice by the investigating officer, SI Amrik Singh, when she appeared before him during the course of enquiry. This fact was apprised in the Court by SI Amrik Singh. The officer concerned certainly deserves to be dealt with appropriately for his mis-conduct.
Let a copy of the order be sent to the Home Secretary, Punjab for taking appropriate action against the officer. The final report of the action taken be submitted to this Court within four months.
The file be put up before the Court on 03.04.2012.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 18.11.2011 sharmila