CRM-M No. 33086 of 2009 Gurjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab Present: Mr.Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anter Singh Brar, Senior DAG, Punjab. *** This is a petition for anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 24 dated 06.04.2001, under Sections 363/366 IPC registered at police station Mahina, District Moga, on the ground that the petitioner was never served or summoned in the trial and consequently was declared a proclaimed offender. Further allegation is that the aforesaid FIR was lodged as far back as 06.04.2001. In this interregnum the petitioner has gotten married to the victim Dharamjit Kaur and the parties have now two children. Contention is that in any case no offence has been made out against the petitioner. Learned Senior DAG has placed reliance on Rajbir alias Lilu v. State of Haryana reported as 2003(4) RCR(Crl.) 773 wherein this Court as held as follows:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that if an accused is declared as a proclaimed offender, he has no right to apply for pre-arrest bail. It would be travesty of justice that on one hand the accused is declared as a proclaimed offender and on the other hand he is seeking his release by pre-arrest bail. The proclamation declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender has not been placed on record nor it has been suggested that any effort has been made to challenge the order passed by the Magistrate under those provisions. There are adequate provisions in Chapter VI Part C enabling the petitioner to file an appropriate application for the CRM-M No. 33086 of 2009 -2- setting aside of such a declaration and assure to the Magistrate that he would be available for trial. However, nothing is shown to have been done. Therefore, it would not be possible to extend that benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and the instant application is liable to be rejected.” On the contrary learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Dharmender and another v. State of Haryana reported as 2008(1) RCR(Criminal) 793 wherein pre-arrest bail was extended to similarly situated proclaimed offenders since no specific role was attributed to them in the FIR. On a conspectus of both these judgments, in my opinion the interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is granted relief of stay of arrest till such time as the application of the type envisaged by this Court in Rajbir's case (supra) is filed by the petitioner and is decided. The petitioner would be granted this relief only if the due application is filed before the learned Magistrate on or before 7.12.2009.Petition stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel on payment of usual charges. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 02, 2009 sunita