Petitioner sought regular bail after being declared a proclaimed offender following a short absence from court in an IPC 372/232/292 case. Court held brief absence did not warrant prolonged custody and allowed bail on personal bond with surity.
Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount.
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
Crl. Misc. No.M-33164 of 2012 Date of Decision: 11.12.2012
Anoop Singh
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana
... Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG Haryana.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK,J(ORAL)
Anoop Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 466 dated 9.5.2010 at Police Statioin City Karnal, District Karnal, for an offence punishable under sections 292, 232 and 377 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was granted regular bail, but he could not continue appearing in the court and consequently, he was declared a proclaimed offender on 16.12.2011. According to him, now the petitioner is in custody since 16.7.2012. He further submits that there is no other case pending against the petitioner. According to him, the petitioner missed the date of hearing before the court below due to some misunderstanding on account of which he came to be declared a proclaimed offender.
=2=
Crl. Misc. No.M-33164 of 2012
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, admits that there is no other case pending against the petitioner. He further admits the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He, however, disputes the factum of absence of the petitioner from the court hearing on account of some mistake. According to him, it was deliberate.
Be the absence deliberate, the fact remains that the petitioner is in custody since 16.7.2012 and for a short absence from the court hearing, the custody of about five months is adequate punishment. In these circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail all over again. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Karnal.
December 11,2012 ( VIJENDER SINGH MALIK ) Jiten JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail having been declared a proclaimed offender due to a short absence from court.
Whether the petitioner must be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond with surety.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anoop Singh
State of Haryana
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
