High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26017/2020dismissed

Sandeep @ Sippi v. State Of Punjab

2020-09-07Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.26017 of 2020 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 07.09.2020 Sandeep @ Sippi .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present:

Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ..

ALKA SARIN, J.: (Oral) Heard through video conferencing.

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for setting aside the order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the ACJM, Ferozepur whereby the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in FIR No.195 dated 24.07.2015. The FIR was registered under Sections 341, 323, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 added later on) at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on 05.03.2018. However, he was not aware of the proceedings against him as he was in Rajasthan for the treatment of his daughter.

Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the State through video conferencing and has pointed out that the address given in the petition is that of Ferozepur and not of Rajasthan.

PARKASH CHAND 2020.09.08 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.26017 of 2020 - 2 - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the petition reveals that an assertion has been made that the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings as he was residing in Rajasthan for the treatment of his daughter for over a period of two years. However, not a single document has been attached with the petition to indicate that the petitioner was residing in Rajasthan for over a period of two years. No document regarding the alleged treatment of his daughter in Rajasthan or anywhere else has been brought on the record. Further, the address given in the present petition is of Ferozepur and that is where the petitioner was served. The petitioner had earlier filed a petition for anticipatory bail being CRM-M No.

12641 of 2016 and even in the said petition for anticipatory bail the address mentioned is the same as the one mentioned in the present petition, that is, of Ferozepur. No cogent reason has been shown by the petitioner for remaining absent and not presenting himself in Court for over a period of two years. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition, which is dismissed.

(ALKA SARIN) JUDGE 07.09.2020 parkash NOTE:

Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO PARKASH CHAND 2020.09.08 11:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document