Allowed

Jasdev Singh Thind v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jan 2016CRM-M/39583/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court set aside an order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC because the petitioner was in New Zealand and never served with summons. The Court directed the trial court to decide the bail application expeditiously if the petitioner appears within 45 days, ignoring the previous proclamation status.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 05.07.2010 declaring petitioner a proclaimed offender set aside; petitioner to apply for bail within 45 days.

Jasdev Singh Thind Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

- 1 -

¶2

CRM-M-39583-2014 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-39583-2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 5, 2016

Jasdev Singh Thind

.....Petitioner

Versus

Narinder Kaur and another

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present: Mr.G.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶16

Mr.P.S.Paul, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.2.

¶17

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.(ORAL)

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his

¶19

prayer to the extent that in a complaint case, the petitioner was

¶20

declared as proclaimed offender without noticing the fact that he

¶21

(petitioner) was never served with bailable or non-bailable

¶22

MEENU 2016.01.07 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

CRM-M-39583-2014 (O&M)

¶25

warrants. He has referred to interim/zimni orders, Annexure P3 (colly) passed by the learned trial Court.

¶26

As per the material available on record the summoning order was passed by the learned trial Court on 22.05.2008 and the petitioner had left India and gone to New Zealand on 21.06.2008 before his service could be effected. Perusal of the interim (Zimni) orders passed by the Court below would reveal that the petitioner was never served and suddenly on a particular date the learned trial Court opted to start the process under Section 82, Cr.P.C., for declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender and ultimately abruptly vide order dated 05.07.2010, Annexure P5, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender.

¶27

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner was never served and it has not come on record that he was in the knowledge of the summoning order, dated 22.05.2008 passed by learned trial Court.

¶28

In view of the above, the order, dated 05.07.2010, Annexure P5, is set aside and it is directed that if the petitioner appears before the learned trial Court within 45 days of passing of this order and moves an application for grant of bail, the same

¶29

MEENU 2016.01.07 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

¶30

- 3 -

¶31

CRM-M-39583-2014 (O&M)

¶32

shall be decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, without being influenced with the fact that he was declared as proclaimed offender

¶33

Disposed of.

¶34

January 5, 2016 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) meenu JUDGE

¶35

MEENU 2016.01.07 10:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

Jasdev Singh Thind v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasdev Singh Thind 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

Sanjiv Kumar Gupta Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Gurinder Pal Singh Kahlon Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ranjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Saraj Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.