CRM-M-21582 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-21582 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.10.2011 Pappu Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.K.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.203 dated 3.12.2008 under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Sadar, Faridkot. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the complaint of Veerpal Kaur aged 14 years in which she had alleged that on 2.12.2008 at about 6.30 PM when she was closing the gate of her house, the petitioner, who is her neighbour, forcibly took her to haystack and committed rape and on her raising alarm, ran away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the prosecutrix has involved the petitioner yet her father had made a complaint against one Jagga Singh of the same offence on the basis of which FIR No.56 dated 15.6.2009 under Section 376 IPC was registered against Jagga Singh at Police Station, Sadar, Faridkot. It is submitted that twice the police had tried to seek cancellation of FIR registered against Jagga Singh but the said report was not accepted by the Court, consequently Jagga Singh is facing trial. At the same time, the petitioner, who has been named by the prosecutrix for the alleged offence on the basis of which FIR No.203 dated 3.12.2008 is registered, was declared proclaimed offender. He had filed revision against the order dated CRM-M-21582 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - 4.01.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot by which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender, which was allowed on 11.5.2011 with the following observations: “Accused Pappu Singh is ready to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case, and without commenting whether proclamation was carried on with or without following the proper procedure, the revision is allowed, order dated 4.01.2010 vide which he was declared proclaimed offender is set aside subject to the condition that he is directed to surrender within 15 days from today before the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate where he shall be taken into custody where the challan u/s 376/174-A in the FIR No.203 dated 3.12.2008 has already been presented.” However, the petitioner did not appear before the Court below in terms of the aforesaid order dated 11.5.2011 and the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the following order on 11.6.2011: “File received from the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, alongwith copy of order dated 11.5.2011, vide which Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot, set-aside order dated 04.01.2010 passed by then Chief judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, vide which accused was declared proclaimed offender, subject to the condition that he will surrender before this court within 15 days from 11.5.2011, but accused has not surrendered in this Court. Let necessary intimation to Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, CRM-M-21582 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - Faridkot be sent immediately. File be put upon 15.7.2011 for further proceedings.” Thereafter, the case was adjourned for 19.8.2011 by a separate order. After the order dated 11.5.2011, the petitioner has in fact filed an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Court below, which was dismissed with the following observations: “Whether the rape was committed upon prosecutrix by accused Jagsir Singh or present accused/petitioner Pappu Singh and accused/petitioner Pappu Singh actually twisted investigation in his favour to the disadvantage of accused Jagsir Singh is a question which shall be decided while deciding the case on merits. Accused/petitioner Pappu Singh has not joined influencing the complainant and other witnesses, if he is granted benefit of pre-arrest bail. Therefore, present bail application has got no merit and the same stands dismissed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there are two versions of the case in which the prosecutrix has named the petitioner, who alleged to have committed rape whereas her father Katha Singh has named Jagsir Singh @ Jagga Singh. He has further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as the application for cancellation of FIR pertaining to Jagsir Singh @ Jagga Singh has not been accepted by the learned Magistrate. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the DNA report indicates the involvement of the petitioner, who does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail because he had not complied with the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridkot on 11.5.2011 in which it is recorded that the petitioner had made a statement before the Court that he is ready to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Court, therefore, the learned Court below without CRM-M-21582 of 2011 (O&M) - 4 - commenting upon the merits of the case and without commenting whether proclamation was passed in accordance with law or not, allowed the revision petition and the order declaring proclaimed offender was set aside with the condition that he would surrender before the Court within 15 days but despite that he did not appear and flouted the order and asked for anticipatory bail, which has been rejected by the learned Court below. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that the petitioner had obtained the order dated 11.5.2011 by taking the Court into confidence that he would submit to the jurisdiction of the Court within 15 days and did not comply with the order, I do not fit it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 13, 2011 JUDGE Vivek