JAGJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIR No. 26 dtd. 7/3/2018, registered at Police Station City Raikot, District Ludhiana (Rural), constitutes therein offences, under Ss. 420, 506/34 IPC.

(2.) The petitioners are named as accused in the afore FIR. The FIR became registered on 07/3/2018. Believing the statement, made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners, prior to the registration of the afore FIR, had proceeded to United Kingdom, and, also believing his further statement, as made by him, at the bar that, still the petitioners are in United Kingdom. Therefore, from the above stated facts, as stated at the bar by the learned State counsel, and, from the fact as also stated at bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C., has been instituted before the learned Magistrate concerned, on 9/2/2021. Consequently, it is to be determined that, thereupon whether the petitioners, who did not cause their personal appearance before the investigating officer concerned, for theirs rendering co-operation to the investigating officer concerned, nor they instituted any application before any Court of Law, in India, seeking according of indulgence of anticipatory bail to them. Consequently, when the investigating officer concerned was empowered under law, to make a motion before the learned Magistrate concerned, for issuance of non- bailable warrants upon the petitioners, and, thereafter upon failure of their execution, upon the petitioners, to seek an order for declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders.

(3.) Though the petitioners, evidently at the initial stage of investigations commencing into the offences (supra) in FIR (supra), became enjoined to render cooperation, to the investigating officer concerned, and, also became enjoined to, upon non-bailable offences, being carried in the FIR (supra), to make an motion seeking indulgence of anticipatory bail, being accorded to them, rather before the Court concerned. Moreover, if the petitioners concerned, did not make the afore participation, nor sought indulgence of the Court concerned, for grant of anticipatory bail to them, and, with the FIR progressing to the stage of filing of a challan before the Court. In sequel, it was open to the investigating officer concerned, to make a motion, before the learned Magistrate concerned to, ensure that they cause their appearances, before the latter, through issuance of non-bailable warrants, upon them, and, also upon failure of execution thereof upon, the petitioners, to seek an order declaring them as proclaimed offenders. The afore order, would be valid, subject to the petitioners residing at the afore phase in India, as it would hence ensure that the accused concerned became obviated, from theirs fleeing from the process of law, or fleeing from justice.