Kewal Singh @ Satnam Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on: 02.08.2022

Pronounced on: August 24, 2022 Kewal Singh @ Satnam Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsimar Singh Sitta, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 16.07.2018 Mehta, District 447, 506, 511, 148, 1479 IPC Amritsar and 25/27 of Arms Act.

1.

On being declared a proclaimed offender, the petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking anticipatory bail. 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 CrPC and declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender vide order dated 3-5-2014, passed by JMIC Baba Bakala Sahib, Annexure P-2.

3.

The trial against the other accused proceeded, and vide judgement dated 29-01-2016 (Annexure P-3), the Trial court acquitted all the accused, who were facing trial.

4.

After that on 31 May 2021, the petitioner entered into an out of court compromise with the complainant, vide Annexure P-4. 5.

Petition is silent about the reasons for not attending the trial. Faced with this, and after arguing for some 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. 6.

Ld. counsel appearing for the State has strenuously opposed this petition, including the limited relief as confined by the petitioner. 7.

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. 8.

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 CrPC, deems it appropriate to grant the following limited relief to the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in this order. 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. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation. 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 fifteen 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 fifteen 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. This condition has been imposed by invoking the powers under section 362 read with 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 14.

Within fifteen days from today, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of rupees ten thousand in 'High Court Lawyers Welfare Fund,' Account number 65018692589, IFSC code SBIN0050306, Branch Code 50306, Brach Address State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Sector 1, Chandigarh. After depositing, the petitioner shall file the proof of deposit, before the concerned court and send its copy alongwith a copy of this order to the Secretary, Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, either in physical or electronic mode.

15. 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. 16.

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 August 24, 2022 sonia arora Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

NO.