Rafiq v. State Of Haryana
$
+ .+/
$-$.
HE HIGH COURT FOR THE IN TH E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH HARYANA AT CH %& &'
0
12 ) $ $/ $
- ()*) )
)31 "
!"
" ! Mr. #0'0!'2 / 2 3 4/ 506$#!4 4'6!7. !#
/- #-./
)( (
)!/-.' # !""!# #$#
#
!
19 % & ( )* )! * !* !*&*!*&(!* *&& '!()& *+& 41 & ""'
!) # , !#$#!$-./ - #/ #0 0
/ / - # -. / - -.
# / - - ##.0/ /# 1 -0/ $ 2 2 2 $ 008$ -. # - # / #0$ ##$///
/ - /.//- # : / ; - -0! # #/0/#-# - < #! $ 2 /! /$2 $#-/ . ###.2// -#
!$#. #/ #0 7 ! /#-#-0
12# #/2# 0#/# ( " 2 #- -. # #/2##/#/ -. # 0 / /## #0/ #0 ! 1 0 / 0/ )(
)00#####-#-$ ## #/ 0 & ' ! $# - #2 /2 !$ /2/-# / #0 /- 1
! " #
4
$
% & '(
)
! )
! ( )
" " $
+ "
( % " # " $
, - (
*.%"*.,"*/,"*/0"*1%"*2%"*2*"*2,"*23"*2/"*20" *21"*22",..",.%",*/",,2",32,/.4 ,3 1/.
" # " " # " $
& ( % ( , $5 +
:0 7 0 . /-# #0- #
0/ #0/8 02- 000
!!"#$%&'
!!"#$%&'(
)* + ,- &./0 0%%'
1 2 &../ " 3# 4, 5"6 &70' 8 8 *) &.%." 3#%'9, 5) !!46 " 4"
600.'
: 4;56 !&$ 46 " 4
6 &%%' ,9
5) !&04/6 " 4"
6$$!'<
8 = >( &.70 " 3# &0%' ( &.$ " 3#.%$' 1 2 '&../" 3#&70
= &.$$" 3#0&
/#$#$-2 0.-00= $-. /-# / #0 $ /
0 - / - / $0$$- -
# 0# $ # - > 0 7$2!- 2 - #0 #0 0
- # 0- /0 / -
# 0# $ ! /2#. ! -> !/-## 2 /# // 0 - / / #0 ///
/ /# 0-# *) #.0 /-# / #0 2 ;/-$ /-# #0/ #. .!
- # / #0 /8 / #0 - /-# 2 #0-/-#0# $
/-# ! #0-/-# #.0 / /# $ 2## $
#. ?0->0 / /0$
#. 0 / /# $2## /./ #0-> 0 / / -
#
: 2: 2!$ 0$# -2#/-# / #0### 0/-# /2 ;
/./ #0-##./-# #.$// #/# $
#. '2-#.! / #0 - $ / / #00.->0 / / 0$
#.! 0 / /# $2##0
/ / / /-# 0. - 0 /. #0 '# /. $## - $ #0#-/-#$// 2 02 - -. 0 /-# #0 2 / #0 0 0$/ #0$#.
/
/-#/ .0/
0$-. #- #22 0 2- 0/#$/ #0 $/-# .
> / /-# #0 - 0.
'. 0/# $ - @#.A #0/ -!##.
"//#.-2 /#$/ # 0 / /# / =0! $ 2- /# ! 2# & )
)!#!-.-2/ /
#- . / -#-# $ / $ 2 > ! / #0/B )B )!$ 0 / $ *) .A 0 // -# 7 !0$ #2#/2 !/$ !/ 0#*) .-2
0/-# #0$ 0. 9# - /# /Gurappa Gugal and others Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 CriLJ 826 and Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339. 10.
Further, a perusal of order dated 29.09.2022 reveals that when the matter was taken up on that date, the proclamation was received back executed, however, since the period of 30 days had not elapsed, the matter was adjourned to 26.10.2022 awaiting the appearance of the petitioner.
.
However, while adjourning the case to 26.10.2022, the trial Court failed to consider the fact that #2>0-.0/#.: / #0$-/-# / -$ /-# / #0/ / $ # *) . 9 > - 0
:4;56 !&$46 " 4
6&%%
0$ 00-.#2
) )!$# : )(
)$/ /! $ ! // /! $ # #0
'
#.! 2$ 0 -2! //##$0/)(
)!/ -.# #
!
19% &( )* )! * !* !*&*!*&(! *&& '! ()& *+& 4 1 & "" '
! ) # ,! #$#! $-. / - # #0 ! $ ## # / 0
7$2!/ -
$ / $ ! -: /.-#!.//-# 1- . /.-# ! / ## - #-# - 0 : #
. -: . # -# - / -.
$#$
5
%#-2 .//# #- #-#! ## --/0>/#. ## - >/ . / 0 - # /#0
## // / - # ! ##0. 04.06.2024 (MANISHA BATRA)
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No