A Price for Prosecution: Court Imposes $10,000 Cost on Proclaimed Offender Seeking Redemption

In a significant order highlighting the judicial commitment to preventing the evasion of law, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted a "last opportunity" to a man declared a proclaimed offender nearly two decades ago. Avtar Singh Pannu, who had been absconding in the United States since 2004, successfully petitioned the court to set aside orders declaring him a proclaimed offender, provided he pays a heavy price.

The Two-Decade Standoff

The case dates back to February 2004, when FIR No. 26 was registered at Police Station Rajasansi, Amritsar, involving charges under Sections 419, 420, 468, and 471 of the IPC and Section 12 of the Passport Act. While the petitioner was initially released on regular bail, he subsequently relocated to the United States. In his absence, the trial court cancelled his bail bonds in July 2004 and eventually declared him a proclaimed offender in January 2006.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay was not intentional, claiming the petitioner was unaware of the ongoing legal proceedings. The State, represented by the Additional Advocate General, did not oppose the limited relief of allowing the petitioner to surrender for trial.

Balancing Equity and Legal Compliance

Justice Sandeep Moudgil expressed clear dissatisfaction with the petitioner's conduct, noting that the petitioner was well aware of the pending criminal case when he left the country. The court characterized the delay as a deliberate attempt to "evade the process of law for the last almost 20 years," a behavior the bench did not hesitate to label as "highly deprecated."

However, in a move aimed at bringing the long-pending trial to a conclusion, the Court exercised its discretion to allow the petitioner to return to India and face the trial court.

Key Observations

The judgment is underscored by the court’s firm stance on holding the petitioner accountable for the judicial disruption he caused:

> "This Court would note that the present FIR... dates back to the year 2004... he intentionally and deliberately has tried to evade the process of law for the last almost 20 years which is highly deprecated on his part."

> "There is no denial to the fact that due to petitioner’s act, delay has occurred in trial proceedings and has caused prejudice to the other side."

> "...to compensate the delay which is caused by the petitioner alone, he is directed to deposit costs of US $10,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Clerks Association."

The Road Ahead: Conditional Surrender

The High Court has issued a strict mandate: the petitioner must surrender before the trial court within four weeks. The court further qualified this relief, noting that the trial court should only consider the petitioner's subsequent bail application if he produces a receipt confirming the $10,000 payment to the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Clerks Association.

Failure to abide by these conditions would effectively revive the previous status of the petitioner as a proclaimed offender, leaving the State free to pursue the case. This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for those attempting to skirt judicial proceedings, demonstrating that while the law may offer an path to return, it often comes with a substantial cost to the public treasury and the legal institution.