Criminal Misc. No.M-14755 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.M-14755 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.11.2009. Jagjit Singh alias Bittu Chawla ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL J. **** On 17.7.2009, this Court passed the following order:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ever since the FIR was registered on 24.2.2007, the petitioner was never served with any notice by the Investigating Officer to appear before him. In the report of service of notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner was not residing at the place where service was sought to be effected. Thereafter, arrest warrants were sought from the Court, which were directed to be issued on 31.10.2007. Service of arrest warrants was also sought to be effected at the address where the petitioner was not residing and considering the report, the court directed issuance of proclamation under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. and subsequently while noticing in order dated 5.2.2008 that proclamation against the petitioner had been duly effected, on 5.4.2008 the petitioner was declared Proclaimed Offender. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner had been provided security by Jalandhar Police at his new place of residence at Ludhiana, as he was apprehending danger to his life and liberty at the hands of Ludhiana Police on account of the fact that the petitioner had made allegations of corruption against the police, in which 14 police officials were arrested and they are facing trial. Otherwise, the petitioner was also appearing in Courts in number of cases at Ludhiana only, so there was no question Criminal Misc. No.M-14755 of 2009 (O&M) 2 of petitioner's non-complying any direction of appearance before the Investigating Officer or before the Court, had he ever been served a notice for the same. For perusing the report filed by the police before the court regarding service of the petitioner and the manner in which proclamation was effected, lower court record would be required. Let the same be requisitioned for 26.8.2009. In the meantime, the petitioner may appear before the Investigating Officer and in case of arrest, he shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.” Today, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the record of Court below. A perusal thereof shows that on 31.10.2007, on request of the prosecution arrest warrant was issued against the petitioner for 15.11.2007. The report of the Process Server was as under:- “It is requested that I visited the address of the accused Jagjit Singh Chawla alias Bittu Chawla s/o Jaswant Singh at Street No.11, Mohalla Janakpuri, Ludhiana as mentioned in the warrants. The house of the accused was locked. On my asking, the neighbourers present at the spot, told that the accused is not residing here. Report is submitted.” In the report, the Process Server had also referred to the statement made by the neighbourers, which are as under:- “We, the following respectables of Mohalla Janakpuri, Ludhiana hereby make joint statement that Jagjit Singh Chawla @ Bittu Chawla s/o Jaswant Singh was earlier residing in our street No. 11. Now, he has left his resident from here and started residing at some other place. We do not know about his present address. We have given the Joint Panchayati Nama, which has been heard and the same is correct.” Though from the report and the statements of the neighbourers of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was no more residing at the address where warrants were sought to be served, still the Court opined that it Criminal Misc. No.M-14755 of 2009 (O&M) 3 was not possible to apprehend the petitioner/accused in near future and a direction was issued for publication and process was issued to declare him proclaimed offender. Finally on November 15, 2007, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. Learned counsel while reiterating the submission made earlier submitted that once the petitioner was not found to be residing at the address at which he was sought to be served, the entire process initiated thereafter declaring him proclaimed offender is not in conformity with law. It is a case where on account of complaint made by the petitioner against certain police officers Ludhiana he had been provided security by the Jallandhar police while he is still residing at Ludhiana and further that he was regularly appearing in the other cases in Court and also regularly carrying on his business of lottery at Ludhiana. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner could not be served notice. Infact the entire exercise was just to harass the petitioner by getting him declared proclaimed offender and torture in custody. Learned counsel for the State submits that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 17.7.2009 the petitioner has already appeared before the Investigating Officer and furnished his bail bonds. Considering the aforesaid facts this Court is of the opinion that due process was not followed while declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender. Further it cannot be said that the petitioner was avoiding arrest or appearance before the Court, therefore, the order declaring him proclaimed offender is set aside and the order dated 17.7.2009 granting interim bail to the petitioner is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) 11.11.2009 JUDGE Reema