CRM-M 16104 of 2009 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.29480 of 2009 in
CRM-M 16104 of 2009
Date of Decision: 3.9.2009
Maninder Singh
..Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present : Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the State/respondent.
Mr.Ajay Kaushik Advocate for respondent No.2.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral)
CRM No.29480 of 2009
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.C.’) read with Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking
quashing of the order (Annexure P-6) dated 10.10.2008 vide which non-
bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner and order dated
24.2.2009 (Annexure P-8) whereby the petitioner has been summoned
through proclamation issued under Sections 82/83 of Cr.P.C. for 31.3.2009.
The petitioner has also prayed for bail during the pendency of the petition.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in
case which is being tried by Special Court, CBI Punjab, Patiala in CC No.5
CRM-M 16104 of 2009 -2-
of 31.3.2004 titled as “CBI Versus O.P.Mahna” registered under Sections
409, 420, 467, 468, 471/120-B IPC and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was
on bail. On 10.10.2008 the Special Court, CBI Punjab, Patiala passed the
following order :
“As regards accused Maninder Singh, he is absent
without intimation. A perusal of record goes to show that he
has not been appearing in this case regularly and has been
seeking exemptions from personal appearance frequently for
one reason or the other. On last date of hearing also i.e.
19.9.2008, he had not appeared and an application seeking his
exemption from personal appearance was filed through Counsel
Sh.Ranjan Gupta, Advocate on the plea that he was unable to
attend the Court due to non-availability/non-reservation of
ticket from Chennai to Patiala by train. Such ground was not
found to be convincing and genuine. Nevertheless, since father
of such accused Pritam Singh had appeared and make a
statement that he would cause appearance of accused on next
date of hearing i.e. for today the application was allowed
making it clear that such type of application in future would be
doomed for failure and appropriate action including issuance of
non-bailable warrants of arrest and initiating proceedings under
Section 446 Cr.P.C. would be taken. A perusal of the file goes
to show that presence of this accused was secured with great
difficulty in as much as non-bailable warrants of arrest had to
be issued. He appeared in the Court on 1.2.2005, when the
CRM-M 16104 of 2009 -3-challan had been filed on 31.3.2004. In that way he appeared
after about eleven months of filing the challan. The interim
orders reveal that he has been seeking exemptions from
personal appearance for one reason or the other. He is clearly
misusing the process of law and his conduct cannot be
appreciated. His non appearance in the Court despite of specific
direction issued in that regard on last date of hearing i.e.
19.9.2008 clearly goes to show that he has little respect for the
Court and he does not care for the directions issued by the
Court. Sh.Ranjan Gupta, Advocate states that he is not to file
any application in this case.
Under the circumstances, his bail bonds cancelled and
forfeited to the State. Let he be summoned through Non-
bailable warrants of arrest with notice to Surety and attesting
witness for next date of hearing i.e. 31.10.2008. Due to this
very reason, statements of PWs Gian Chand Miglani and
Harwinder Singh Bedi could not be recorded. They are
discharged for the time being. Ahlmad is directed to issue non-
bailable warrants of arrest against Maninder Singh accused. A
notice to his surety and attesting witness today itself be handed
over to Shri R.M.Khushwaha, Senior Public Prosecutor, who is
to ensure that the non-bailable warrants of arrest are executed
and notices are served well before the next date.”
On 24.2.2009, the following order was passed:
“Non bailable warrants of arrest issued against accused
Maninder Singh received back unexecuted. His surety Hari
CRM-M 16104 of 2009 -4-Narayan, who has appeared in the Court on last date of hearing
i.e. on 20.1.2009 and had stated that he would give necessary
information in the Court, he is also not turned up. A perusal of
file goes to show that accused Maninder Singh absented from
the Court without any intimation on 10.10.2008 and inspite of
issuance of non bailable warrants of arrest repeatedly, he has
not been arrested till date. Under the circumstances I am
satisfied that he has absconded and is concealing himself, so
that warrants of arrest are not executed against him and there
are no prospects of his immediate arrest. Therefore, let he be
summoned through proclamation under section 82, 83 Cr.P.C.
for 31.3.2009. List of properties of such accused be furnished
so that warrants of attachment can be issued.”
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was
in prison on 4.5.2008 as per the remand warrant of Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai under Section 135 of Customs
Act, 1962 RR No.17/2008, F.N.VIII/48/B/2008-DRI and he was taken as
cofeposa detenue on 4.6.2008 as per the order of the Govt. of Tamilnadu in
GO No.SRI/350-2/2008 public (SC) department dated 4.6.2008. It is further
submitted by him that a habeas corpus petition was filed by the petitioner
against State of Tamilnadu and Union of India as well as against
Superintendent of Central Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. The said
writ petition was allowed by Division Bench of High Court of Madras on
31.3.2009 and order of detention was set aside. The petitioner was ordered
to be set at liberty forthwith in case his detention is not required in any other
case. On 1.7.2009 by virtue of CRM M-30698 of 2009, the petitioner has
CRM-M 16104 of 2009 -5-
placed on record custody certificate (Annexure P-9). In the main case,
counsel for respondent No.2 (CBI) made a prayer for short adjournment to
verify the factual position as mentioned in the custody certificate (Annexure
P-9). This Court stayed the arrest of the petitioner, till the next date of
hearing i.e. 31.3.2009.
Sh.Ajay Kaushik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of CBI
has placed on record a copy of letter by R Nandagopal, Sub Inspector of
Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai dated 16.7.2009 who was deputed by the
respondent-CBI to verify the genuineness of the document (Annexure P-9).
He has stated thereunder:
“As per the orders of SP/CBI/ACB/Chennai, I proceeded
to Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-66 and I contacted
Sh.Thomas PA to Superintendent of Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai and enquired about the certificate bearing letter
No.7706/R6/2008 issued from the O/o the Superintendent,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-66 dated 24.6.2009 of
Sh.Maninder Singh s/o Pritam Singh. He stated that the
certificate issued to Sh.Maninder Singh s/o Pritam Singh is
genuine and same as verified their office records and certified
the same. In this regard, the original certified copy is enclosed.”
As a matter of fact, counsel for CBI has accepted that in view
of the aforesaid custody certificate (Annexure P-9) which has been found to
be genuine in the investigation and has been verified at the instance of CBI,
order dated 10.10.2008 vide which his bail bonds were cancelled for non
appearance, should not survive. Similarly order dated 24.2.2009 vide which
he was proceeded to be declared as proclaimed offender also deserves to be
CRM-M 16104 of 2009 -6-
set aside because the petitioner was in prison from 4.5.2008 to 3.4.2009,
which has been found to be illegal by the Division Bench of Madras High
Court and as such, he could not have appeared before Special Judge when
the case was taken up on 10.10.2008 and 24.2.2009.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed.
Consequently, orders Annexure P-6 and Annexure P-8 are set aside. Since
arrest of the petitioner has already been stayed by this Court on 1.7.2009,
the petitioner is directed to put in appearance before Special Court CBI at
Patiala where his bail bonds shall be accepted to the satisfaction of the
Court.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain)
3.9.2009 Judge
Meenu