Criminal Misc.-M No. 32634 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 32634 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.11.2011 Pawan Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, Ludhiana. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, against whom non-bailable warrants have been issued on 11.5.2011 and further on account of non-service of even non-bailable warrants, proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. was issued on 17.8.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not residing at the address mentioned in the complaint, in which the petitioner was summoned to face trial, otherwise he would have appeared in the court below. The offence for which he was summoned in the complaint is bailable. He further referred to the order passed by the learned Criminal Misc.-M No. 32634 of 2011 [2] court below on 15.4.2002 mentioning therein that service of the petitioner was not yet complete. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on 31.10.2011 while issuing notice of motion for today, the record of the case was called for from the court below. The same has been perused. The petitioner along with other accused were summoned to face trial vide order dated 18.5.2001, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. Thereafter, summons were issued to the accused. For three dates of hearing, none of the accused was served. On 15.4.2002, the court passed the following order: “Accused not served. Summons received back unserved. Now accused be again summoned for 5.8.2002.” Before the next date of hearing, one of the accused, namely, Gurmail Singh appeared in the court on 20.4.2002 and filed his bail application, which was accepted. Thereafter, for 19 dates of hearing, it is recorded by the court below that service of the petitioner was not complete. The summons were either received back unserved or were not received back at all. While recording this fact, the court below issued bailable warrants against the petitioner on 26.3.2007. Thereafter, for three dates of hearing, bailable warrants could not be issued as the complainant did not deposit warrant fee. Further, for 10 dates of hearing, service of even bailable warrants of the petitioner could not be effected. On 11.5.2011, the court passed the following order: “Bailable warrant of accused No. 2 not received back. From the file it shows that earlier summon of accused No. 2 received back duly effected and he is knowledge of the present complaint and he intentionally is evading service. I am satisfied that accused No. 2 cannot be served by ordinary process. Let accused No. 2 be served through non-bailable warrant of arrest for 9.6.2011.” For four dates of hearing thereafter even non-bailable warrants on the petitioner could not be served. On 17.8.2001, the court Criminal Misc.-M No. 32634 of 2011 [3] below directed for summoning of the petitioner through proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. It was only after the proclamation was made as recorded in the order passed by the court below on 8.10.2011 that the petitioner filed pre-arrest bail application in the court below on 10.10.2011. Summons available on the file were perused to see as to whether the fact recorded by the court below pertaining to order dated 15.4.2002 regarding service of summons on the petitioner on 15.2.2002 were correct or not. A perusal of the same shows that the summons issued to the petitioner were duly served on him on 15.2.2002 under his signatures and the summon submitted to the court. The next date of hearing mentioned therein was 15.4.2002. A perusal of the zimni orders shows that some official had given the report after order dated 27.11.2001 that summons have been received back unserved. On the basis thereof, the court below passed the order that the accused were not served as the summons had been received back unserved and they were directed to be summoned afresh. The report was apparently wrong as the summons after service of the petitioner on 15.2.2002 had been received. The fact is that after having knowledge of the pendency of the complaint filed against him, the petitioner had been able to delay the trial of the complaint for a period of about 10 years. He sought pre-arrest bail only after proclamation under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. was issued against him. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. The conduct of the official, who reported that summons issued for service of the accused in the complaint for 15.4.2002 had been received back unserved on the basis of which the court passed order on 15.4.2002 directing for issuance of fresh summons be got conducted by the District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and appropriate action be taken against him. Criminal Misc.-M No. 32634 of 2011 [4] The record of the court below be sent back immediately as the next date of hearing is stated to be 7.11.2011. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 4.11.2011 mk