The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting relief under section 482 of CrPC and the need for judicious exercise of such discretion, considering the circumstances of the case and relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

98

14.08.2010

Baghapurana

420, 406 1 PC

1. Challenging the order of proclamation on being declared a proclaimed offender, the petitioner has come up before this court under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

2. The accused could not be served through the ordinary process, including summons, bailable warrants, and even non-bailable warrants. The concerned court finally proceeded against the petitioner under section 82 of CrPC and declared the petitioner a proclaimed offender vide order dated 28 Aug 2015, passed by Ld. SDJM, Baghapurana, Punjab.

3. Ld. counsel for the petitioner seeks quashing on the merits. However, in my considered opinion, the explanation made in paragraph 9 is not at all satisfactory and needs further clarification. However, the submissions made in paragraphs 10 to 12 need consideration and furthermore the criminal justice system must not hamper and suffer because of the petitioner. Thus, this court is inclined to grant the following relief, reserving liberty to raise the remaining prayers, including quashing of FIR registered on proclamation and also for the quashing of FIR registered on the complaint, either on merits or on compromise, if such need so arises.

4. Ld. counsel appearing for the State has strenuously opposed this petition, including any limited relief.

5. After careful analysis of the petition, this court is confining the adjudication of this matter to the extent mentioned herein before, reserving the liberty to the petitioner as prayed.

6. The primary object of service is to secure the accused's presence in trial. The petitioner has approached this court on its own, which establishes the bonafide at this stage. Without adjudicating the explanation offered and stand taken by the petitioner, this court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under section 482 CrPC, deems it appropriate to grant the following limited relief to the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in this order.

7. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

8. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalvan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan (5) Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing requires, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is li