Kiran Raj

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has granted an opportunity to the petitioner, Avtar Singh Pannu, to surrender before the trial court, subject to the condition that he deposits $10,000 with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Clerks Association. The Court directed that the petitioner’s bail application be considered on the same day, provided he complies with the deposit requirement. The Court noted that the petitioner had remained outside India for almost 20 years despite knowledge of the pending case and stated that his actions had contributed to a delay in the trial.

The petitioner approached the High Court through CRM-M-54945-2024, seeking to quash the order dated July 9, 2004, by which his bail bond and surety bond had been canceled without notice to him, as well as the order dated January 25, 2006, by which he was declared a proclaimed offender. These orders were passed in relation to FIR No. 26, dated February 10, 2004, registered at Police Station Rajasansi, District Amritsar, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner had been unaware of the proceedings against him, as he had left for the United States of America (USA) after securing regular bail on February 10, 2004. It was submitted that no summons had been served upon him and that he had no knowledge of the proceedings before being declared a proclaimed offender. The petitioner’s counsel further undertook that the petitioner would return to India, surrender before the trial court, and participate in the trial without delay.

On behalf of the State of Punjab, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had deliberately absconded for nearly two decades, evading legal proceedings despite being aware of the pending case. It was submitted that the petitioner’s prolonged absence had obstructed the progress of the trial, thereby prejudicing the prosecution and affecting the legal process.

The State did not object to the petitioner’s willingness to surrender but sought strict conditions to ensure compliance. The prosecution requested that a monetary cost be imposed upon the petitioner to compensate for the delay in trial proceedings.

The Court considered the submissions of both parties and took note of the prolonged absence of the petitioner. It recorded that the FIR had been registered in 2004 and that the petitioner had secured bail on February 10, 2004, after which he left for the USA and did not participate in the trial. The Court stated: "The present FIR in which the petitioner has been declared proclaimed offender dates back to the year 2004 in which the petitioner was arrested and was thereafter released on regular bail vide order dated 10.02.2004 and thereafter he left to the USA, so, this fact that the present case is pending against the petitioner was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner and he intentionally and deliberately has tried to evade the process of law for the last almost 20 years which is highly deprecated on his part."

Despite the petitioner’s conduct, the Court considered the fact that he had now undertaken to return and surrender. It stated: "Now keeping in view the fact that he is ready to come back to India and surrender, this Court would grant him one opportunity to appear and surrender before the trial Court."

The Court further noted that the delay caused by the petitioner had affected the trial and had prejudiced the prosecution. In order to compensate for the delay, the Court imposed a mandatory monetary cost. It recorded: "There is no denial to the fact that due to petitioner’s act, delay has occurred in trial proceedings and has caused prejudice to the other side and to compensate the delay which is caused by the petitioner alone, he is directed to deposit costs of US $10,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Clerks Association and a receipt of the same be produced before the trial Court and only in that eventuality, application of the petitioner for seeking bail be considered and decided on the same day."

The Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and apply for regular bail. It further ordered that: "In case, such an application for bail is moved by the petitioner before the learned trial Court, the same shall be considered on the same date and decided in accordance with law."

However, the Court conditioned the hearing of the bail application upon the petitioner depositing $10,000 with the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Clerks Association. It was directed that: "To compensate for the delay which is caused by the petitioner alone, he is directed to deposit costs of US $10,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Clerks Association and a receipt of the same be produced before the trial Court, and only in that eventuality, application of the petitioner for seeking bail be considered and decided on the same day."

Additionally, the Court stated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the State would have the liberty to seek revival of the present petition. The Court recorded: "However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not abide by the aforesaid undertaking, the respondent/State shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for revival of the instant petition."

The Court disposed of the petition in these terms, granting relief only on the specific conditions imposed.

The Court permitted the parties to act upon the server copy of the judgment downloaded from the official website. Further, it directed that if any party applied for a certified copy of the judgment, the same be issued upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

Case Title: Avtar Singh Pannu v. State of Punjab
Case Number: CRM-M-54945-2024
Bench: Justice Sandeep Moudgil

[Read/Download order]