‘Commendable example’: Punjab and Haryana High Court lauds trial court for saving paper, but junks order

‘Unstainable trial court order’

• The trial court’s order revealed that there were no recorded reasons to believe that the petitioner had either absconded or concealed himself to evade the execution of warrants, which is an essential requirement for declaring a person a “proclaimed offender.”
• There was no proof on record regarding service or non-execution of summons or warrants of arrest, nor was there any report from the executing agency to establish he deliberately absconded.
• The trial court proceeded directly to issue a proclamation without fulfilling the mandatory statutory requirements, indicating that it had acted in undue haste merely to dispose of an old complaint.
• The order of the trial court was found to be unsustainable, as the procedural infirmities strike at the root of the right to a fair trial.

• The sole purpose of issuing non-bailable warrants or issuing a proclamation is to secure the presence of the accused before the trial court.
• The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial court on each date of hearing.
• The declaration of a person as a proclaimed offender constitutes a serious step, which curtails the personal liberty of an individual.
• The procedure prescribed for issuing such a proclamation, including the recording of satisfaction of abscondance, issuing notice at the accused’s residence and publication, is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with in haste.
• The trial court’s order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender and all the consequential proceedings stemming from it are set aside.
• The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court within a period of two weeks to apply for bail.
• The trial court is also directed to decide the bail application of the petitioner expeditiously.
• It is visible from the orders placed on record that every precaution has been taken by the officer to ensure the optimum utilisation of papers.
• The orders have been printed on the same sheet wherever possible, which is suggested to be done by every court.

‘Marriage arranged, but charges framed’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Karan Bhardwaj argued that his client was in a consensual relationship with the minor when she arrived at the petitioner’s house in 2016.
• Bhardwaj further argued that his client was arrested despite being innocent and was later granted bail by the trial court.
• It was further submitted that later, the minor’s father had arranged the marriage of his daughter with the petitioner in Gurudwara Sahib.

• Despite the development, the charges were framed against his client by the trial court.
• Bhardwaj emphasised that the trial court, in undue haste, ignored the requirements for proclamation and proceeded to declare his client a proclaimed offender without issuance of notice or summons or warrants and without evidence of absconding.
• He further highlighted that the trial court’s order violates the procedural safeguards, striking at fair trial guarantees.

‘Father disinherited petitioner’

• It was claimed by the petitioner that he was in a consensual relationship with the girl who left her parental home on the night of November 2016.
• It was further highlighted that the girl arrived at the petitioner’s house because her father raised objections to their relationship.
• Subsequently, the girl’s father lodged an FIR under the provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act.
• The petitioner was arrested pursuant to the FIR and was later granted bail by the trial court.
• It was also claimed by the petitioner that after his release on bail, the girl’s father arranged her marriage with him at a Gurudwara Sahib.
• Thereafter, the petitioner approached the present high court seeking the quashing of the FIR on the grounds of marriage.
• A notice of motion was issued in September 2017, directing the trial court to adjourn the matter beyond the date fixed by the present court, and the petitioner was granted interim protection.
• However, the said order was cancelled in July 2019, as the petitioner had gone abroad and no one appeared on his behalf.
• When the matter was listed before the present court in March 2024, it was submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that his client had been declared a proclaimed offender by an order passed in 2021.
• The petitioner submitted that he was unaware of the cancellation of interim relief before travelling abroad (USA) and, due to compelling circumstances, could not remain in contact with his family, which ultimately led to him being declared a proclaimed offender.
• The petitioner said that trial court records revealed that notices were not served upon him, and inquiry reports recorded that his father had disinherited him and that his whereabouts were stated to be unknown.