HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 113/2025 Rajinder Singh ..... petitioners) Through :- Mr. Rohit Bhalwal Advocate. V/s UT of Jammu and Kashmir and others .....Respondent(s) Through :- Mr. P.D.Singh Dy.AG Coram: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 1 Notice. Mr. P.D.Singh Dy.AG accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final disposal. 2 The petitioner herein against proceedings under Section 512 Cr.P.C have been initiated, in terms of order dated 28.11.2019, passed by the learned Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jammu, in case titled State vs. Rajidner Singh, has filed the present petition for cancellation of warrants and admitting him on bail. 3. In the petition, it has been stated that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of any offence and that the order initiating proceedings under Section 512 CrPC against him is based on a flimsy report of police serve that the petitioner is not traceable, whereas, in fact, no notice was ever served upon the petitioner by the police. It is further submitted that, as per the provisions of law, proceedings under Section 512 CrPC are initiated only after Sr. No. 16 2 the police and the concerned Magistrate are satisfied, on the basis of material on record, that the accused has absconded. However, in the present case, the learned Magistrate has not recorded any satisfactory reason to conclude that the petitioner had absconded based on any material submitted by the police. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner had absconded, as such, proceedings in terms of Section 512 CrPC have been initiated against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not surrendered before the trial Court, as such, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be recalled. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the petitioner is involved in FIR No. 469/2018, registered with Police Station, Domana for offences under Sections 366/511/506 RPC. It is further revealed that the petitioner was continuously absent and could not be traced out, leading to the initiation of proceedings under Section 512 CrPC against him. The impugned order also indicates that the charges have yet to be framed in the present case. Having gone through the impugned order, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate, upon being satisfied that the petitioner had absconded and that prospects of his immediate arrest were remote, passed the impugned order issuing warrants of arrest against the petitioner. 6. With regard to the relief sought, directing the concerned police not to arrest the petitioner, the law in this regard is now well settled. Nature and gravity of the accusation, the exact role of the accused, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of the accused repeating similar or 3 other offences, the interest of the public at large, and the punishment for the offences charged, are some of the relevant considerations. The Courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. In the present case, the accusations against petitioner are very serious. 7 The Supreme Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, has held that a person against whom a proclamation has been issued and proceedings under Sections 82/83 of Cr.P.C (central) have been initiated, he is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Similarly, in the case of Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr., ( Criminal Appeal No. 1209/2021), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rejecting anticipatory bail to an absconder/proclaimed offender against whom proceedings under Sections 82/83 of Cr.P.C were initiated for commission of offences under Sections 406/407/468/506 Cr.P.C held as under: “If anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Ssection 82 of Cr.P.C, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail”. 08 In the case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the scope of granting relief under Section 438 qua a person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if an accused is absconding and has been declared as a proclaimed offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. Furthermore, when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and is declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 4 09 In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it is well settled that an absconder/proclaimed offender is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. In the case in hand, petitioner/accused involved in FIR No.469/2018 registered with Police Station, Domana for commission of offences punishable under Sections 366/511/506 RPC has absconded from the investigation and has been proceeded under Section 512 Cr.P.C 10 In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate has rightly initiated the proceedings under Section 512 CrPC against the petitioner. The order impugned dated 28.11.2019, initiating proceedings under Section 512 CrPC, against the petitioner, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality and does not warrant interference by this Court. The same is confirmed and upheld. The petitioner/ accused is directed to surrender before the trial court, after which he may apply for bail, which shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law and on its merits. 11 The present petition being devoid of merit, is out rightly rejected and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected applications. (MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI) JUDGE Jammu 24.02.2025 Sanjeev whether order is reportable: Yes/No