AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
Petitioner – Sukhveer Singh, aged 38 years, has filed present petition under section 528 of BNSS for setting aside of the order dated 26.03.2009 (Annexure P-4), whereby Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana (trial Court) has declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender in case FIR No.111 dated 07.11.2006 under Sections 447, 427, 511, 148 IPC, registered at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana.
Counsel for the petitioner argues that actually there were total five accused namely (1) Sher Singh, (2) Ranjit Singh, (3) Sukhbir Singh (petitioner herein), (4) Harinder Singh and (5) Didar Singh. By referring to judgment dated 12.03.2014, counsel contends that all the four accused except petitioner, who faced the trial, were acquitted by the trial Court and even the appeal filed by the complainant is also dismissed by the Appellate Court i.e. Court of Sessions, vide judgment dated 31.10.2017 (Annexure P-8). However, the said benefit could not be earned by the petitioner because at the time of incident, he was only 18/19 years of age and for the purpose of study and earning livelihood, he had to settle himself abroad i.e. Canada. On that account, petitioner could not appear before the Court and, therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender, vide order dated 26.03.2009.
Counsel submits that petitioner is now grown up person and wants to come back to India for settling the dispute and to join proceedings before the Court, which would be initiated after his appearance. Thus, petitioner seeks one opportunity with some protection enabling him to appear before the Court to meet out the purpose, subject to payment of some cost.
Notice of motion to respondent No.1 only at this stage.
On advance notice learned State counsel puts in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
After examining the facts, this Court has formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused.
Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case involved, and where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentional, to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalized examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay.
Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it viz-a-viz the person/accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay.
It is not expected that undue time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest such accused.
Considering all such aspects, this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (4) RCR (criminal) 765; Law Finder Doc Id # 20238111 considered similar plea of appearance, expressed at the instance of the accused, who failed to appear before the Court at appropriate time, and observed that:
"paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get hold of them."
Again, this Court has considered the aforementioned similar plea in case Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-2206-2025, decided on 16.01.2025.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and also perused the paperbook.
In totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given one chance to appear before the trial Court, so that proceedings may restart and continue in smooth manner.
Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 26.03.2009 (Annexure P-4) is set aside to the extent of declaring the petitioner 'proclaimed offender', and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court on or before 05.09.2026.
The petitioner shall also furnish bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner would also submit specific undertaking/ affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of his conduct.
However, this order shall be subject to the payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs, to be deposited by the petitioner in an Old Age Home of the area, as may be decided by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court shall specify the time frame within which such costs will be required to be deposited, but not more than six weeks, failing which this order would not be of any advantage to the petitioner.
It is also clarified that if the petitioner reaches India within next six weeks period, he shall not be arrested in the instant FIR till his surrender/ appearance before the Court concerned for joining the proceedings. On his appearance, petitioner shall be released on bail for further consideration as to whether any offence is made out or not against him especially in the situation when all other four accused have already been acquitted.
arrest of the petitioner after reaching India,
With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of.