Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail alleging the order declaring him a proclaimed offender became void. Court rejected the plea, citing delay in filing the first bail application and the serious nature of allegations involving financial loss.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-16988 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 08, 2011.
Manoj Kumar ..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.S.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
This is the second petition moved by the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.576 dated 9.12.2008 registered at Police Station Sadar, Patiala under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC.
The earlier petition was dismissed on 12.5.2011 after observing that the petitioner had already been declared a proclaimed offender and as such no case to grant the pre-arrest bail was made out. The petitioner has meanwhile challenged the order declaring him proclaimed offender, before this Court in a separate petition in which the operation of the said order has been stayed.
[2]
CRN No.M-16988 of 2011
This second petition has now been moved on the premise that the order declaring the petitioner proclaimed offender has become nonexistent.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the liberty already granted vide order dated 12.5.2011, I do not find any ground to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The FIR was registered in the year 2008 and nothing precluded the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum promptly and in accordance with law. The allegation in the FIR regarding entrustment of huge amount also dissuade this Court to grant pre-arrest to the petitioner. Suffice it to mention that the interim order passed by this Court staying the operation of the order whereby the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender will be given due weightage by the trial Court while deciding the regular bail application, if any, moved by the petitioner.
Dismissed.
July 08, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to a petitioner who is a proclaimed offender but whose designation order is stayed pending challenge.
Manoj Kumar
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
