IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-23086 of 2009 Date of decision : September 25, 2009 Harjinder Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Harjinder Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in cross case under section 323 read with section 34 IPC registered in main FIR No. 73 dated 25.6.1997 under sections 307, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner was allegedly found innocent in the case on investigation but was summoned as additional accused vide order dated 25.2.2002 on prosecution application filed under section 319 Cr.P.C. However, since the petitioner failed to appear, he was declared proclaimed offender. Criminal Misc. No. M-23086 of 2009 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the petitioner was found innocent during investigation, the petitioner went to America being resident thereof and now the petitioner wants to come to India and therefore, he should be granted anticipatory bail. The contention cannot be accepted. Admittedly, family members of the petitioner were co- accused in the case. The petitioner has absconded from the process of law for seven and half years. He cannot be extended the concession of anticipatory bail when he has already been declared as proclaimed offender. Learned counsel for the petitioner went to the extent of submitting that petitioner was not aware that he had been summoned as accused in the instant case. The contention has been noticed simply to be rejected because the family members of the petitioner were co-accused in the case and therefore, it is completely unbelievable rather absured that the petitioner was not even aware of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in case Puneet Singh Chauhan vs State, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal), 418. In that case, non-bailable warrants of the petitioner had been issued, but in the instant case, the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed offender. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Finding no ground for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the instant petition is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 25, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'