Rasid Ali v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46641-2025 Date of decision: 26.08.2025 RASID ALI .... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SUBHAS MEHLA , J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in the present petition under Section 482 of BNSS 2023 is for issuance of appropriate directions to the investigating/arresting officer to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail forthwith in the event of his arrest in case FIR No.409 dated 11.06.2014, under Sections 457/380 of IPC, registered at Police Station Model Town Panipat, District Panipat. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in custody in another case i.e. FIR No.299 of 2014 dated 18.07.2014, when non-bailable warrants were issued against him on 12.04.2017. He further contends that when petitioner was released from jail on completion of sentence qua said FIR No.299 of 2014, he was under the impression that he had been acquitted by the trial Court. His absence was bona fide, and not mala fide.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Karanveer Singh, Senior DAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He submits that the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender and is involved in KUSUM 2025.09.04 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh

CRM-M-46641-2025 criminal activities, with three other cases pending against him. He has also been convicted in one of the said cases.

5.

Learned State counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State of Madhya Pradesh V. Pradeep Sharma, 2014(2) SCC 171, wherein it has been held that anticipatory bail on behalf of the petitioner, who is a proclaimed offender is not maintainable. 6.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

7.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court and has filed the present petition after a delay of eight years from the date of issuance of non-bailable warrants, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

8.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (SUBHAS MEHLA) 26.08.2025 JUDGE Kusum Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No KUSUM 2025.09.04 09:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC Chandigarh