The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., claiming non-service of summons. The court found the petitioner had induced a false report to evade trial and abused the process of law, thus denying bail.
The petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail is dismissed.
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.
Crl. Misc. No. M-3214 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-3214 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.4.2011
Jatinder Singh Saggu
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajan Gupta, J. (oral)
This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking prearrest bail in a complaint case in which the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Sections 323, 352, 357, 364, 365, 504, 506, 148 and 149 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that service was never effected on the petitioner and due to that reason he could not put in appearance before the trial court, resulting in issuance of nonbailable warrants. He could not appear before the trial court, therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender. However, since the petitioner is now ready to surrender before the trial court, concession of pre-arrest bail be granted to him.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.
It appears that petitioner was summoned to face trial vide
Crl. Misc. No. M-3214 of 2011 2
order dated 29th May, 2002 for offence under Sections 323, 352, 357, 364, 365, 504, 506, 148 and 149 IPC. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused assaulted the complainant. The complainant was given beating by all the accused after dragging him for some distance near the Tehsil office. The petitioner was summoned to face trial in the year 2002 but did not appear before the court. As a result, he was declared proclaimed offender on 17th November, 2007. In view of the stand taken before this court that service was not effected on the petitioner, a report was sought from the concerned court. According to said report, the process server visited the office of the petitioner at 9.45 A.M. on 4th July, 2002 and met him personally. He asked him to receive the summons, but the petitioner asked him to wait for 10-15 minutes. After some time, the petitioner told the process server to give a wrong report that he had been unable to meet him (petitioner). He also told that he had a meeting with the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa. The process server showed his inability to give a wrong report. At this, the petitioner remarked that he was not bothered for the court summons. Later, bailable warrants were issued. The same were received back with the report of constable Gurbakshish Singh that he met the mother of the accused but she refused to disclose his whereabouts. Thereafter, non-bailable warrants were also issued which were received back because whereabouts of the accused were not known. Ultimately, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender on 17th November, 2007.
Crl. Misc. No. M-3214 of 2011 3
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. He has abused the process of law for a fairly long time. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
20.4.2011 'rajpal'
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who induced a false report of non-service of summons to evade trial and was declared a proclaimed offender is entitled to pre-arrest bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jatinder Singh Saggu
State of Punjab
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
