IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-34056 of 2010 Date of Decision: 04.01.2011 Gurvinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab for the respondent – State 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Perusal of the record reveals that FIR No. 33 dated 14.2.2002 under Section 186/332/353/427/148/149 IPC registered at Police Station Samana, District Patiala was lodged against the petitioner-accused and others. After investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. The case was fixed for prosecution evidence on 22.11.2007 when present accused- petitioner remained absent, hence his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State and he was directed to be summoned through warrant of arrest. Since, he could not be arrested and found, hence, he was declared as Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 14.6.2008. Crl. Misc. No. M-34056 of 2010 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that other co-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court. He has further stated that petitioner could not appear before the trial Court for the simple reason that he has gone Australia for his further studies. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 22.9.2010, petitioner has surrendered/appeared before the learned Magistrate on 19.10.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. He has further stated that evidence against the petitioner-accused and other co-accused who have already been acquitted is the same and identical and petitioner must be enlarged on bail during the trial. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG Punjab has argued that since petitioner-accused was declared Proclaimed Offender, hence, he should not be enlarged on bail and there is every likelihood of absconding once again. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner should be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Petition stands allowed. (ALOK SINGH) 04.01.2011 JUDGE reena