Harbans Bungar and another vs State of Punjab

Rajan Gupta, J.—In this petition u/s 438 Cr. P.C., the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar, vide FIR No. 173 dated 23rd December, 2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The matter involved is purely of civil nature. They are, thus, entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail. She has relied upon judgment reported as Mehar Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab, to contend that petitioners could not have been declared proclaimed offenders in their absence.

Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. He submits that FIR was registered way back in the year 2010. The petitioners have never associated in the investigation. They were later declared proclaimed offenders. Thus, they are not entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

FIR was lodged by Jaswinder Kaur. She alleged that she had purchased a property from the petitioners. Later on, they resiled from the agreement. She preferred a civil suit for specific performance which was decreed. It was, however, found later that the petitioners had already sold the property in question to some other persons. It appears that inquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police, City Jalandhar who found that petitioners had committed a fraud with the complainant. FIR was registered on 23.12.2010. Petitioners being not available, were declared proclaimed offender on 30.11.2011. Admittedly, petitioners are still not in the country. The petition has not been filed through a duly authorized attorney but on the basis of a joint affidavit stated to be executed in England. On a query being put to the counsel for the petitioners about the maintainability of the petition, no clear answer is forthcoming. Reliance on judgment Mehar Singh''s case (supra) is misplaced. In the said case this court was considering validity of a proclamation order issued by the court u/s 82 Cr. P.C. Finding the same unsustainable, it had quashed the said order. The instant petition is, however, for pre-arrest bail. Such a petition can be entertained by the court if a citizen fears his imminent arrest at the hands of the investigating agency. In the instant case, however, petitioners are not in the country. The prayer for pre-arrest bail is, therefore, misconceived. Moreover, petitioners are proclaimed offenders. This petition is, thus, without any merit and is hereby dismissed.