##PAGE1##

CRM-M-1037-2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

103 CRM-M-1037-2026

Decided on: 07.04.2026

DILMICK LAMBA …...Petitioner

Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

…...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present: Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate, and Ms. Tamanna Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 15 dated 23.01.2014 (P-1), under Sections 406, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Phase -1, SAS

Nagar, Punjab.

2. On 13.01.2026, following order was passed:-

“i) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 15 dated 23.01.2014(P-1), under Sections 406, 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Phase -1, SAS

Nagar, Punjab.

ii) As per allegations in the FIR, complainant had allegedly paid an amount of Rs. 7,95,451/- to the petitioner for facilitating the payment of the insured amount for the damage of goods, somewhere in the year 2013. Petitioner neither repaid the amount nor

fulfilled the assurance given to the complainant. On the registration of the impugned FIR,

petitioner was declared a proclaimed person. However, on filing an anticipatory bail petition before the Court of Sessions, it was noticed vide order dated 03.07.2023 that notice was never served upon the

LAVISHA

2026.04.08 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC, Chandigarh

CRM-M-1037-2026 2

petitioner. Consequently, order declaring him a proclaimed person is not legally valid.

Resultantly, interim anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, directing him to join the investigation within seven days and, in the event of his arrest, directed the arresting officer to release him on bail. Operative part of the order dated 03.07.2023

reads as under:

“3. Ld. Counsel for the applicant argued that applicant has no concern with the case and never received any amount from complainant. He was never

served in this case either by the police or by the Court.

4. Ld. Addl. PP for State has referred to the notice issued to the applicant dated 06.09.2013 and stated that this notice was served upon the applicant. Applicant was declared proclaimed person/absconder vide order dated 18.11.2016 and he is not entitled benefit of anticipatory

bail.

5. Counsel for the applicant pointed out that signatures do not tally with the signatures of applicant. He further argued that offence is compoundable with the imprisonment up to 7 years and he should granted

anticipatory bail.

6. Heard. Perusal of trial Court record shows that applicant was never personally served. Thus it is a fit case where the applicant should be granted an opportunity to explain his position. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to surrender before the SHO/Investigating Officer within 7 days from today and to cooperate with the investigation. In case of his doing so, in the event of his arrest, he will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/IO subject to compliance of provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. Now to come up on 12.07.2023 for awaiting compliance report/further proceedings.

Record be also again produced on the date fixed.”

iii) Due to the petitioner’s failure to join the investigation, on the next date of hearing, i.e., 12.07.2023, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, dismissed the anticipatory bail

petition.

iv) Probably, in view of the findings recorded in the order dated 03.07.2023 and with directions to join the investigation, there was no occasion for the petitioner to file a separate petition for quashing of the order declaring him a proclaimed person. However, this Court, vide its order dated 19.12.2025 in CRM-M- 34331-2023, considered all the circumstances and quashed the order dated 18.11.2016, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohali, declaring the petitioner as a proclaimed perso