Nirmal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another

Sureshwar Thakur, J

In FIR bearing No. 124 of 1.6.2018, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot, an offence constituted under Section 420 of the IPC, is embodied. The incrimination drawn thereins, is against three accused, namely, the present petitioner, one Gursewak Singh, and, one Monika Gupta.

However, during the course of investigations, into the petition FIR, the investigating officer concerned, exonerated the role, as assigned to co-accused Monika Gupta, and, thereafter took to institute a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., against the present petitioner, and, one Gursewak Singh.

Though, co-accused Gursewak faced trial in respect of the petition offence, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Faridkot, and, also he became acquitted in respect of the petition offence, but for non-appearances of the present petitioner, before the learned trial Judge concerned, the latter declared him a proclaimed person, as he did not participate in the trial, as became entered into by the learned trial Judge concerned, in respect of petition offence(s).

Though, the benefit of the verdict of acquittal, as pronounced, upon co-accused Gursewak Singh, by the learned Magistrate concerned, cannot be, at all capitalized by the present petitioner, as he never participated in the apposite trial, whereas, rather the learned Magistrate concerned, can draw succor from the mandate, as carried in Section 299 Cr.P.C., to ensure the re-stepping into the witness box of the prosecution witnesses concerned, unless they are dead, or are direly mentally or physically incapacitated.

Given the further factum that this Court had declined to entertain a previous application, instituted under Section 438 Cr.P.C., on the ground of it being misconstituted, as in the face of the accused being declared a proclaimed person, any application, cast under Section 438 Cr.P.C., would become completely misconstituted, and, also would be not maintainable, but since the order made by the learned trial Judge concerned, declaring the present petitioner, to be a proclaimed person, has been quashed, through a decision made by this Court, on 30.5.2022, upon CRM-M-23543-2022, thereupon, the instant petition, cast under Section 438 Cr.P.C., may prima facie, become maintainable.

However, since any petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. would become maintainable, and, also, would also become well constituted, only when the investigations into the petition offences, are underway, and, when they appertain to non-bailable, and, cognizable offences, thereupon, the accused concerned, may, upon his rearing a valid apprehension of his becoming arrested, hence would become ably capacitated, to seek the indulgence of pre arrest bail from this Court, to through his preferring a petition, cast under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Be that as it may, since the petitioner is to face trial after his making his surrender before the learned trial Judge concerned, in respect of the petition offence, and, though after his making his appearance before the learned trial Judge concerned, the latter may, especially when in respect of the co-accused, a verdict of acquittal has been pronounced, insist him to execute before him, and, to his satisfaction, the requisite personal, and, surety bonds, and, though yet in the face of the above, the instant petition may also become not maintainable, but only in the interregnum since today, and, upto his making his appearance, before the learned trial Judge concerned, this Court deems it fit to protect the personal liberty of the present petitioner.

Therefore, uptil the present petitioner proceeds to record his personal appearance, before the learned trial Judge concerned, the learned Magistrate, may not draw any coercive process against the present petitioner.

In consequence, with the above interim protection, and, upto the afore period, the petition is disposed of.