Read Order: Shakuntla Devi v. State of Punjab 

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, November 24,2021: While referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pardeep Sharma wherein it has been observed that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail,the Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied relief of anticipatory bail to the accused in a case pertaining to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The petitioner, apprehending her arrest in the criminal case arising out of the FIR registered at Police Station Division No.1, Pathankot, under Section 174-A of IPC,had moved this petition seeking the relief of anticipatory bail.

The facts, culminating in the registration of the subject FIR, were that one Satinder Singh preferred a Complaint Case against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, despite the issuance of bailable as well as non-bailable warrants by the Trial Court against her (petitioner), she failed to appear before the Court.

Finally, the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C were carried out against her and by the order dated April 19,2019, she was declared a proclaimed person/absconder and consequent thereupon, the present FIR had been registered against her.

From the petitioner’s side it was submitted that the petitioner never came to know about the filing of the above-said Complaint Case against her and therefore, she had wrongly been declared a proclaimed person in the said case and even otherwise, the petitioner had already surrendered before the Trial Court in the above-said case and she had been released on bail on April 15,2021 and it being so, she deserved the relief as prayed for in this petition.

The State counsel argued that the petitioner evaded her appearance before the Trial Court in connection with the above said Complaint Case and therefore, she was rightly declared a proclaimed person/absconder and keeping in view these circumstances, the instant petition be dismissed.

The Bench of Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta opined that by an order, the petitioner had been granted the relief of bail in the above-said Complaint Case but however, the fact remained that as specifically mentioned in the Statusreport, her presence/appearance could not be procured in the said case despite the issuance of bailable as well as non-bailable warrants which led to the issuance of the proclamation against her as envisaged under Section 82 Cr.P.C.

The Bench also stated that the observations made in the Pardeep Sharma case(Supra) would be fully applicable to the present matter and in the light of the same, it was explicit that the petitioner could not be granted the relief of anticipatory bail in this case.

Thus, as a sequel to the fore-going discussion,the instant petition stood dismissed accordingly.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment