Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 2134
2012(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRM-M-34328 of 2011 (O&M)
Rahul Dutta
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 12/12/2011}
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana.
For the Complainant:Ms. Madhumeet, Advocate, with Mr. Rakesh, Advocate.
Headnote:“proclaimed person” and “proclaimed offender” have different connotations
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 82(4)--Terms “proclaimed person” and “proclaimed offender” have different connotations--A person who is evading the execution of warrants of arrest issued under the particular Sections of the IPC which are mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C., can only be declared to be a proclaimed offender and the persons under the other provisions of the IPC and the laws, can be declared to be a proclaimed person in terms of Section 82(1) Cr. P.C.
The offences mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr. P.C. are of recurring nature--All the persons, who are absconding or concealing themselves to evade execution of warrants of arrest, could be proclaimed persons but they could be declared a “proclaimed offender” only under the provisions of the IPC which are mentioned in Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.--There is stark distinction between a proclaimed person and a proclaimed offender and for that reason, there is a difference of punishment provided under Section 174-A IPC as it provides imprisonment which may extend upto three years or with fine or with both regarding a person who has been proclaimed in terms of Section 82(1) Cr.P.C. and the imprisonment which may extend upto seven years and also with fine in respect of a person who is declared a “proclaimed offender” under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.127 dated 08.08.2009, under Sections 498-A, 406/34, 174-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short “IPC”] at Police Station Sector-40, Gurgaon, District Gurgaon.
2. The FIR is registered on the complaint of Akansha Bakshi, wife of the petitioner, who has alleged that the petitioner is settled in Australia. She had been to Australia with her parents and brother before her marriage to verify about the job etc. of the petitioner where she was pressurized to perform paper marriage on 14.06.2008, but her marriage according to Hindu rites was again performed on 14.02.2009. On 28.02.2009, she left for Australia with the petitioner and his brother for more than one month or so. In this interregnum, she was allegedly harassed for demand of dowry. She came back to India for taking her exams on 05.04.2009. Her father gave her Hyundai-i10 car and when she was forced to leave her matrimonial home on 10.05.2009, all her dowry articles/jewellary were retained by her in-laws.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner went to Australia in the year 2000 for doing the course in hospitality management and acquired the Australian citizenship in the year 2005. The matrimonial alliance of the petitioner with the complainant was the result of a family acquaintance. The petitioner came to India in December, 2007 and on 14.01.2008, they were formally engaged in a family function and on 27.05.2008 the complainant along with her parents and brother went to Melbourne and stayed with the petitioner for 21 days. On 29.05.2008, a request was made for registration of marriage before the Australian Court which was accordingly registered on 14.06.2008 and after returning to India, the complainant submitted her visa application to the Australian Embassy along with the statement of her relationship. In terms of the wishes of the complainant’s family, the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant was performed as per Hindu rites at Gurgaon on 14.02.2009. On 17.02.2009, the couple went for a Honeymoon to Thailand. They came back to India on 25.02.2009 and left for Melbourne again on 28.02.2009 as the visa of the complainant had already been approved. The complainant came back to India on 04.04.2009 in order to take her exams which were scheduled for 13.05.2009 and on her return, her father gave her a Hyundai-i10 car. She went to her parents’ house on 10.05.2009 for taking her exams, but thereafter the present FIR was registered on 08.08.2009 after due deliberations.
4. It is submitted that the allegations made in the FIR are vague and general in nature, no complaint was ever made in Australia about the alleged harassment for dowry and that the parents of the petitioner are on bail inasmuch father of the petitioner was released on regular bail on 10.08.2009 by the learned Trial Court and his mother has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court on 10.09.2009. He has also submitted that while releasing the mother of the petitioner on anticipatory bail, this Court had observed that all the dowry articles have been returned except for Rs.1,50,000/- regarding which security/surety was ordered to be furnished. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 31.10.2011 and according to the learned State Counsel, the challan has been presented on 05.12.2011. He has further submitted that the petitioner had applied for regular bail before the learned Trial Court which was dismissed vide its order dated 09.11.2009 on the ground that the petitioner has been declared a proclaimed offender on 12.08.2010 and consequently an offence under Section 174-A IPC is also added in the existing FIR.
5. It is submitted that not only the entire proceedings declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender are illegal but also the petitioner cannot be declared a proclaimed offender
