Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: proclaim offender in Satish Chaudhary vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 12 February, 2019Matching Fragments
% 12.02.2019
1. By this petition the petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 174/2008 under Sections 420/468/471/174A/120B IPC registered at PS EOW.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was wrongly declared as a proclaimed offender despite the fact that he was continuously attending to his activities and had performed the marriage of his children when he was present. After the petitioner was arrested on 27th September, 2016 charge for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC has only been framed against him on 27th February, 2018 and later charge for offence punishable under Section 174A IPC has also been added. He states BAIL APPLN. 1022/2018 page 1 of 5 that despite the charge having been framed on 27th February, 2018 and number of dates given for examination of the complainant, the complainant is not coming forward to give his evidence and is seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other. Hence he be granted bail.
3. Learned APP for the State opposing the bail contends that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on 2nd July, 2010 and despite the FIR having been registered in the year 2008 the petitioner was not available for 8 long years and was finally arrested on 22nd September, 2016. She states that the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender in other cases also.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has also addressed arguments. She opposes the bail application and states that the petitioner having been declared a proclaimed offender, no bail be granted at this stage.
6. The two drafts given in the name of DRT-I Mumbai for a sum of `1 crore were returned to the complainant and thus the loss to the complainant is `1 crore by cash and ₹1crore in cheque given to the petitioner.
7. Though petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender and as per the case of the prosecution, could not be arrested for eight long years however petitioner has placed on record documents to show that he had been attending social functions including the marriage of his children.