Rohit Gill @ Rohit Masih v. State Of Punjab

2

IN TH HE HIGH COURT FOR THE E STATES OF PUNJAB AND HANDIGARH HARYANA AT CH
 ++, .

3

 45 



2+%2+%+ ++,

   



%%%

1
01 



  

%%%6 4 




 )

!"#$ % &'()
$   )

"

( Mr. Hitesh Chopra, 3,! 

* 
#
.

33)
. (

"

( * &%


4

*

(
"
(

*

!

!



 


 

 

   


 




* 
(

"
(
', "
!"
# #
"

!
"
 



 
 


$%&
 




 

!
5


%- -

"!
 
'
(

'! 
)*
0(

* 

(
!"

*!"+
*

4
*
*

( 
"
(

*



 


(

(

!

!"


*

( (
""
+ +*"!


!
- !! 
4"
#
6!
#

'!
# #
!
""
"
"
 

(
!,!
(

" 
"
- 
,
.+


 

+

!


/0,


*

**"
(

"
" 0
**""
- -
0

!
0


(
!+*

, ,0

! 

2

-


 
! !!
0
!



+


! 
+

+
,
. +


! 

*
0 0
(


+

 


+
$%& &

!"

( (




!

"

0

,"
!+*+ 

(
!

!
(0

*

!

!+*"
*
,
!+*+ +



5
139
 2
 


,
""
 

!
0 "
(
!+*


* 

0""

%


 

, 
0

* 
0

,
0

!8+ ++80

(

"
"
-


 
*"!

!


(
!" 

*!"+
*
0 
""0

**
*!
*!( 

!


-
/ !





+*


"(" 

(



:

!"

 


*
0
, ,

0"

"

*!


!

+


 ""
,
 
**!
(

" 
"
-
4


( (
"
!

!"

*!"+
*
/ !





* 

"("

( 
+ %
,

"
!"
 

*

!("
" 

,
 "



+"
*"

"!

!

;
,

"( 


!

 
(
"
! "


*



,""
*"



* 
(

 "
-
+



 
*!

!
 -
 


*
""



!"
+

*!"+ +
*
%
+


!
* 


+*




+
+"
""" 


"("

(

0 0
""

!  "
*!

 +

 

< 4

!

. +


/
- 
! 

 +
!

!

*("! 

*!"+ 


(!

 !

-


!" 
+


* !"+
*8
4 
 +
,
(
! 
+
+

+

9 

 % 2661) +27 7# $           

 ! " !

!##$ %
&'&
 ("

 ) *+,

-.)/

;1!$ 0 & 


 #)*+12#$
3   
    .  2626,2/ )  , ,) / !!$ % -&
& 
 "

"

4-,"5./26 7,1/ )  ,8 / ##$39  
   .

.    26 !

, / )  ,) / 776$ "< < 0

 
 : ;

;!)*+ !#1$%

  71) *+#7$'& %- 

 ("$

) *+ ;1! " 
& 
 77)*+!

1
= 3



+ "
*"!

!

0""
 

!*

> >+

*
(

" 
"
-


,"
 



!

 ("("
0 



*
0 0
!,
( (!
,

"
"
-



!



*!"+ 

+


3 3
*"




0
 

*!"+


* *
0




0!
+ 


*
0
 
"

?
+

! 

**! 
(

-
/!

+
0

!"
,"
 

*,

!
 2
- 

* 
0!

*!
+


"


 

 

(
,


!!
+



*(" 
!
*!"

"+
0!

+



&"!


 !
(
*"!
 *
Gurappa Gugal and other riLJ rs Vs. State of Mysore : 1969 Cr

,

826 and S Shokat Ali Vs. State of Haryna : 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 339.

. On 04.10.2013 3, the proclamation was not rece eived back either served or otherw wise and the cas se was adjourned to 17.10.2013 awaiting execution of proclamat tion.

On 17.10.2 2013, the statement of serving p police official was recorded, as s per which, he had executed the proclamation n only on 16.10.2013, which a gain was in vio olation of 
*,

!

!
 2
-


* 
0
,
"

?
+

**
( 

- $

*"


 +


,
*"!
 !"
,"
 

*!"+
0

 
,

+
!*!
*"!

!


0
 
,""

0!

* 
0
**

(

3
*
! 

1 2


-


*( ("!

*!"+

 
(

*("!

!"


+
!*!
*"

"!


0

,""

0 !

!! 
"
@



+


(
9

 +
!*! 
*




+ 

0!

!!
 "



+
!*!
*"!

 !
0

,""

 

!*

 
*!"+


(
9 

+
!*!
*
 

-  
4

( !"
12 1!2 2

!

1 212


-


!. !,


.!,
0! 
+


0"
(

, ,"
*("! 


*!"+
"
""

"


+

*("! 

*,
& "!



!
(
*" !
*
Pawan Kumar Gupta a Vs.

of W.B. : 1973 CriLJ 1368.

The State 3!!"

,0


!

+
(,

" 

,0

 


"0

"
0

(,
!


* 
*

""0


+*
 



*
( 

"
 (
',"
!"
# 
"

!
"


  

  



$%&










!
5


%-

"!

' 
(

'!
) *
0(
 
*

(
!" 

*!"+
*

 
0
""
!  "
*!

+

/0,

*

 !


(

- -
!!
0

*


0 
(.!



 

!* 
("


*


* 

(
"

!
5 
%

(!




 

!*
("


 !


*
""
(
"("
 
(
+

.!"
! 
(.!






"
("

(
*
(

!! 
-

!

!!!
0
"0

"

(,


!

!

**"!

"
( 

!! 
-



"
( ("


!!
-
 ""
(
(
 
*


+
9* "





 
""
(
 

9*


* *

+



( 

"!
 
!!
-

*"
 

+

4""

**!


* 
(

"
- 


""

"
+


%

+
!"


!

*
"

**
( 

"
- 
0

*


0 
+


*
"

""
(
+

(
+ ,   (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 2+%2+%++,


 Whet ther speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whet ther reportable Yes/No