Dismissed

Arvind Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Sept 2011CRM-M/25404/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus-style matter concerns a bail application filed by a petitioner who was previously declared a proclaimed offender. The court noted delays attributable to the trial court following its earlier direction and directed the proceedings to continue on a day-to-day basis.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and make endeavours to conclude it under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-25404 of 2011

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-25404 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: 12.9.2011

Arvind Kumar

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Nirmaljit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶14

On 8.3.2011, this Court, while declining regular bail to the petitioner, had passed the following order:-

¶15

“The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 109 dated 13.9.2004, registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC.

¶16

The petitioner had abstained himself from the Court on 24.11.2009 i.e. on the day when prosecution evidence was to be examined. He remained absent from the Court for the period of one year and one month. He was declared as a

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-25404 of 2011

¶18

¶19

Proclaimed Offender 12.7.2010 and was arrested on 31.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only four witness remain to be examined.

¶20

Considering the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail. However, in the present case, FIR was registered in the year 2004. In view of this, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of four months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶21

With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of.”

¶22

This is a second regular bail application, filed by the petitioner, on the plea that the above said order, passed by this Court, has not been taken in right earnest by the trial Court and the proceedings have not made headway.

¶23

This Court, on 29.8.2011, had directed that a copy of this petition be sent to the trial Judge and his comments be sought as to why the order dated 8.3.2011 has not been complied with. In pursuance thereof, the trial Judge has sent her comments and after perusing the same, this Court is not satisfied with the explanation furnished by her.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner has read various orders, passed by the trial Judge, which have been annexed with the petition as Annexures P5 to P11.

¶25

This Court, at this juncture, shall refrain from commenting upon the conduct of the trial Judge and to take any action. However, in

¶26

Criminal Misc. No. M-25404 of 2011

¶27

¶28

the present case, this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the petitioner is facing a Magisterial trial. He has been denied bail only because of his conduct of having deserted the Court when the case was fixed for evidence and having become a Proclaimed Offender. Petitioner is in custody since December 2010 and his right of liberty cannot be ignored.

¶29

Taking totality of circumstances and balance of equities into consideration, this Court is of the view that the trial Court should proceed with the trial on day to day basis and make every endeavour to conclude the same, as per the mandate of law laid down under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to furnish a certified copy of this order before the trial Court.

¶30

With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of.

¶31

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶32

September 12, 2011 “ DK ”

Arvind Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghbir Singh Vs Arjan Singh & Ors.

Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Nimrita Naresh Kaur Vs Ramesh Kumar & Ors.

Satyawan and Ors. Vs Ram Niwas and Ors.

Gopal Krishan Sood Vs Shilpi Bhayana and Ors.

Darshan Singh Vs Jagroop Singh & Ors.