NAMIT KUMA UMAR, J. (ORAL) v. Talwinder Singh ingh whereby he has

Judgment

1. The instant petition has been filed The .C. for filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of imp impugned order dated 29.09.2006 by the .2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial dicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dasuya e Vs. asuya in the case titled as State Vs Talwinder Singh ingh whereby he has been declared

in FIR clared as proclaimed offender in FIR No.310 dated 30 ted 30.11.2005 registered under Sectio Police Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC at Police Station Tanda, H nda, Hoshiarpur and further directio attach irections have been issued to attach property of the pe f the petitioner under Section 83 Cr.P.C Cr.P.C.

2. Although the petitioner was dec Alth er on s declared proclaimed offender on

29.09.2006; how however, in the year 2022, he file re the he filed a bail application before the learned Addition ditional Sessions Judge, Fast Track S rack Special Court, Hoshiarpur under Section 438 Cr 38 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bai ry bail. The said application was dismissed by th by the said Court vide order dated dated 09.05.2022 by recording the following finding findings:- “5.

5. After giving my careful and thou thoughtful consideration to the riva contentions and on careful perusa tion, erusal of averments of application contents of FIR coupled with the , the the duly assistance rendered, the Court is of the considered view tha Cou that present bail application merits PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.02.14 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.683 6834 of 2025 2- -2 dismissal. Perusal of file reveals veals that present case has been registered on the statement made b e the de by complainant Arjun before the police on 30.11.2005, under Sec Sections 363, 366A IPC. In his statement, the complainant has alle alleged that his daughter i.e. victim aged about 14 years was illiterate. pm, ate. On 8.11.2005 at about 4.30 pm she had gone out of the house for a for answering the call of nature, bu , but she did not return home. He was of r has s of firm belief that his daughter has been enticed away by accused Talw Talwinder Singh @ Sonu as he was also missing from his house. Also Also the record shows that presen applicant/accused Talwinder Sing Singh could not be arrested and proceedings under Section 82/83 C him. 3 Cr.PC were initiated against him Despite proclamation issued by the Des the court, accused Talwinder Singh did not appear in the court and fina finally, he was declared proclaimed offender in this case, vide order rder dated 29.9.2006, by the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuy Judi ir @ asuya. In the case titled as Rajbir @ Lilu Vs. State of Haryana 2003( Lilu 773 003(4) Criminal Court Cases 773 (P&H), our Hon'ble High Court (P& ed is ourt has held that, "If accused is Proclaimed Offender, he has no rig Pro right to apply for pre-arrest bail. I il. It would be travesty of justice that ed is that on the one hand, accused is Proclaimed Offender, on the other h Pro se by her hand, he is seeking his release by pre-arrest bail." In another judgm dgment titled as Parminder Singh Garhcha Versus State of Punjab Gar jab 2004(1) Criminal Court Cases 428(P&H), our Hon'ble High Court 428( ed is ourt has held that, "When accused is absconding, there is no question of n of granting him bail." In another judgment titled as State of Mad Madhya Pardesh Versus Pardeep Sharma 2014(2) SCC 171, similar Sha fore, ilar view has been taken. Therefore in view of all these facts and circum in v , this rcumstances of the case in hand, this court is of the considered view that that no case is made out in his favour r concession of anticipatory ory bail. Accordingly, this bai application deserves dismissal.

6. As a result of my above discussi 6. A cussion, the present bail application with respect to applicant/accused T sed Talwinder Singh being bereft o t of any substance, is hereby dismissed. rned. sed. Lower court record be returned File be consigned to the Record Roo File Room.” PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.02.14 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh CRM-M No.683 6834 of 2025 3- -3

3. Although the application seeking a Alth king anticipatory bail was rejected on

09.05.2022, now , now the petitioner has approached ched this Court after a period of 2 ½ years seeking qu ing quashing of the order dated 29.09 eclared 29.09.2006 whereby he was declared as proclaimed o med offender, which was passed The more than 18 years ago. The petitioner has be has been concealing himself and absc of law d absconding from the process of law for more than 18 han 18 years. It is appropriate to men to mention that the term ‘absconding nding’ has not been de en defined in the statute, however, by the ever, in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme upreme Court in Jayendra Vishnu Th u Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (200 (2009) 7 SCC 104, it has been defin tionary n defined on the basis of discretionary meaning as ‘to h to hide’, which means to depart sec ially to art secretly or suddenly, especially to avoid arrest, pros t, prosecution or service of process. ess. There are two peculiar situations ations; one, where pers e persons are declared Proclaimed P t prior med Persons/Offenders without prior service of summ summons or execution of warrants a people rants and the second is where people conceal themselv emselves from the process of law wit w with a deliberate intention to delay the trial and thus d thus, are declared proclaimed perso vice of persons/offenders after due service of summons and ex nd execution of warrants.

4. In view of the above, the instant p In v wever, stant petition is dismissed. However this Court deem deems it appropriate to direct the re the t the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Co ial Court within a period of three file an three weeks from today and file an application seek seeking bail, which shall be consi by the considered and disposed of by the learned trial Cou l Court, in accordance with law. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE February 06, 20 Pankaj* , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2025.02.14 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh