Simran @ Baby v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.04.2022 Simran @ Baby

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and another

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 03.12.2014 Division No.

5, 406, 420, 120-B IPC Jalandhar 1.

Challenging the order of proclamation on being declared a proclaimed offender, the petitioner has come up before this court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C).

2.

The accused could not be served 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 Cr.P.C and declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender vide order dated 06 Aug 2018, passed by Ld. JMIC, First Class-8, Jalandhar, Punjab.

3.

After arguing for considerable time, ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the criminal justice system must not hamper and suffer because of the petitioner. Thus, would confine the prayers in the petition to grant of bail on the petitioner's surrendering before the majesty of the concerned court, and reserving liberty to raise the given-up relief in the subsequent petition(s), if the need so arises. 4.

Ld. counsel appearing for the State has strenuously opposed this petition, including the limited relief as confined by the petitioner. 5.

Given above, this court is confining the adjudication of this matter to the extent mentioned herein before, reserving the liberty to the petitioner as prayed.

6.

The petitioner offers the following explanation in para No. 5 for non-appearance, which read as follows:

"That subsequently on 11.09.2017, the petitioner could not appear before learned trial Court as she had wrongly noted the date of hearing as 14.09.2017 instead of 11.09.2017. Consequently, the learned JMIC, Jalandhar vide order dated 11.09.2017 cancelled the bail bonds of petitioner on account of non-appearance of petitioner and issued non-bailable warrants of arrest of the petitioner for 04.10.2017. A copy of the order dated 11.09.2017 is being annexed herewith as Annexure P-3." 7.

The primary object of service is to secure the accused's presence in trial. The petitioner has approached this court on its own, which establishes the bonafide at this stage. Without adjudicating the explanation offered and stand taken by the petitioner, this court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C, deems it appropriate to grant the following limited relief to the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in this order. 8.

In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

9.

The possibility of the accused henceforth not attending the trial, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions.

10.

Without 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 with the following order.

11.

The petitioner shall surrender before the concerned court within ten days from today. On appearance, the concerned court shall release the petitioner on bail on the same day, subject to furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction and imposing additional conditions, as it may deem appropriate in the background of the accused's conduct. 12.

The petitioner to execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court.On the reverse page of personal bonds, the petitioner shall mention the permanent address,

along with the phone number linked with the AADHAR card, the other phone numbers (if any), and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above particulars, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change to the concerned Police Station and the concerned Court. 13.

There shall be a stay of the petitioner's arrest in the case mentioned above for ten days; however, if the petitioner fails to appear within the time stipulated above, then stay on arrest shall stand vacated without any further reference to this court. It is clarified that if the petitioner appears before the concerned court, then all warrants issued by the concerned court against the petitioner, in the matter mentioned above shall stand recalled and canceled.

14.

Within ten days from today, the petitioner shall procure a smartphone and inform its IMEI number and other details to the SHO/I.O. of the Police station mentioned before. The petitioner shall always keep the phone location/GPS on the "ON" mode. Whenever the Investigating officer asks to share the location, the petitioner shall immediately do so. The petitioner shall neither clear the location history, WhatsApp chats, calls nor format the phone without permission of the concerned SHO/I.O. This condition shall continue till the completion of the trial or closure of case, whatever is earlier.

15.

Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands.

16. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 17.

There would be no need for a certified copy of this order, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

Petition partly allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 20.04.2022 Jyoti-II Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

NO.