CRM M 28586 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Date of decision: 07.10.2010 1. CRM M 28586 of 2010 Sukhpal Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) 2. CRM M 29361 of 2010 Sukhpal Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of CRM M 28586 of 2010, vide which, a prayer for grant anticipatory bail has been made in case FIR No. 8 dated 12.01.2010 under Sections 409/120-B of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station City Muktsar as well as CRM M 29361 of 2010 , vide which a prayer for quashing of order dated 05.05.2010 (Annexure P3) passed by CRM M 28586 of 2010 2 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar, declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender in the aforesaid FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioner while praying for the aforesaid reliefs has submitted that the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 05.05.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial magistrate, Muktsar. However, thereafter, the petitioner was given the concession of anticipatory bail vide order dated 03.06.2010. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner joined the investigation. Therefore, the proceedings declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offender vide order dated 05.05.2010 should be dropped and the petition praying for anticipatory bail be accepted. There is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel in as much as Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab, on instructions from SI Kulwant Singh, has brought to the notice of this Court that order dated 03.06.2010, granting interim bail to the petitioner was obtained without disclosing that he was a proclaimed offender. When the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to know that the petitioner was proclaimed offender, the concession of bail granted to the petitioner was dismissed. It is also brought to the notice that the petitioner is guilty of embezzlement of `1,33,88,268/-. Moreover, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not have charge at the time when offence was committed i.e. 12.01.2010, cannot be accepted as in fact he was Head Cashier at that time and therefore he is over all responsible for the deposit of the money in the Bank. No ground. CRM M 28586 of 2010 3 In view of the above, both the aforesaid petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, in case, the petitioner appears before the trial Court and files his application for regular bail within 10 days from today, the same shall be decided within two weeks. The above order giving liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the Court will not come in the way of the prosecution while seeking remand. Photo copy of the order be also placed on the connected file. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge October 07, 2010 mohan