Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Abhijeet @ Bablu @ Abhijeet Shankar ... vs State Of Haryana And Another on 21 September, 2022

Author: Anoop Chitkara

Bench: Anoop Chitkara

CRM-M-42598-2022                                                                --1--
                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                   AT CHANDIGARH

                                                      CRM-M-42598-2022
                                                      Reserved on: 16.09.2022
                                                      Pronounced on : 21.09.2022


Abhijeet @ Bablu @ Abhijeet Shankar Bhagat                       ......Petitioner

                                 Vs.

State of Haryana and another                                     ......Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:       Mr. Bipan Ghai, Sr. Advocate with
               Mr. Tushan Rawal, Advocate
               For the petitioner.

               Mr. Manish Bansal, DAG, Haryana.

               Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate
               For respondent No.2-CBI.

                           ***

ANOOP CHITKARA J.

FIR No.     Dated             Police Station          Sections

147         26.08.2017        Sirsa Sadar, Distt. 124A, 147, 148, 149, 186, 188, 307, 332,
                              Sirsa                   353, 395, 427, 435 & 436 IPC and Sections
                                                      3 & 4 of PDPP Act (Section 333 IPC and
                                                      Section 25 of Arms Act)


Seeking the quashing of proclamation order Annexure P-2, the accused has come up before this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

2. Petitioner was arraigned as an accused in the above-captioned matter. On failure to serve the petitioner through the ordinary process, including summons, bailable warrants, and even non-bailable warrants, the concerned court finally proceeded against the petitioner under section 82 of CrPC and declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender vide order dated 03.01.2019.

3. The point to which the petitioner wants to draw the attention of this court is that the absence was not willful and was due to factors beyond the petitioner's control. The State could not dispute the factual matrix at this stage.

4. The primary object of service is to secure the accused's presence in trial. The petitioner has approached this court on its own, establishing the bonafide at this stage. Without 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2022 04:54:14 ::: CRM-M-42598-2022 --2--

commenting on the case's merits, and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and also for the reasons mentioned above, the ends of justice would meet. Furthermore, without adjudicating the maintainability of this petition under section 482 CrPC and leaving that question open; given the explanation offered by the accused coupled with the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, a balanced approach would work as an incentive, a catalyst, speeding up the process, and bringing the guilty to Justice and Justice to the guilty. Thus, exercising the inherent powers under section 482 CrPC, this court deems it appropriate to grant the following limited relief to the petitioner, subject to compliance with the conditions mentioned in this order.

5. Given the above, the petitioner has made a case on the preponderance of probability that neither any sincere attempt was made to execute the warrants nor did the petitioner have any knowledge about appearance as contemplated under section 82 CrPC. Thus, the order is arbitrary and did not afford reasonable opportunity as mandated under Section 82 of CrPC.

6. Consequently, the impugned order of proclamation dated 03.01.2019, passed by ld. JMIC, Sirsa (Annexure P-2), is set aside, and the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner in the FIR captioned above shall not be enforced for fifteen days, and in case the petitioner complies with this order, then warrants shall also stand recalled. The petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned court within fifteen days. The petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for bail before the trial court, and the concerned court shall release the accused on bail on the same date subject to furnishing bonds of its satisfaction. Suppose the petitioner fails to appear within fifteen days from today, in that case, it might be considered that if released on bail, it may not be feasible to produce the accused to face the trial, and consequently, this order shall be recalled automatically under section 362, read 482 CrPC, without further reference to this court.

7. By the next date, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) in the following account and hand over its receipt to the trial court.

Account Name - "HARYANA POLICE WELFARE FUND"

Account No. - 50100097073807 Account Type - Saving Account Bank Name - HDFC Bank, Sector-8, Panchkula IFSC Code - HDFC000108"

Petition allowed subject to the compliance mentioned above. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.



                                                              (ANOOP CHITKARA)
                                                                    JUDGE
21.09.2022
anju rani
                        Whether speaking/reasoned:          Yes
                        Whether reportable:                 No.




                                           2 of 2
                     ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2022 04:54:14 :::