CRM-M-32667-2026 - 1 - CNR NO: PHHC010978592026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 105 CRM-M-32667-2026 Decided on : 20.07.2026 Manjinder Singh . . . Petitioner(s) Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. C.L. Pawar, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manjinder S. Bhullar, DAG, Punjab. **** SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding Section 438 of Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 324, 323, 506, 148, 149 of IPC [corresponding Sections 109, 118(2), 118(1), 115(2), 351(2)/(3), 191(3), 190 OF BNS, 2023), in a case arising out of FIR No.120, dated 13.07.2007, registered at Police Station Balachaur, District SBS Nagar . 2. In respect of the occurrence dated 09.07.2007, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance of injured/complainant Jatinder Singh against a total of seven accused, namely, (i) Salinder Singh @ Kaka Gill, (ii) Harwinder Singh @ Palli, (iii) Kuldeep Singh @ Deepa, (iv) Harjinder Singh @ Jindi, (v) Mangaljit Singh @ Mangal, (vi) Malkiat Ram @ Mintu Pehalwan, and (vii) Manjinder Singh (petitioner herein). Vide judgment dated 19.10.2010, the remaining five accused, JAWALA RAM 2026.07.21 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-32667-2026 - 2 - who had faced trial, were acquitted. However, since petitioner had already been declared a proclaimed offender, he could not continue to face the trial along with the co-accused. It is also pertinent to note that even the statements of the six accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were dispensed with by the learned trial Court in the absence of any incriminating evidence available against them. 3. On account of petitioner's absence, concession of regular bail granted to him was cancelled by the learned trial Court and his bail bonds were forfeited to the State. Initially, non-bailable warrants were issued against him and, thereafter, proclamation proceedings were initiated by fixing 10.07.2010 as the date for his appearance. Consequently, vide order dated 26.07.2010, petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. Petitioner initially challenged the aforesaid proclamation order and the same was quashed by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2026 passed in CRM-M-7413-2026 (Annexure P-3), with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within one month from the date of the said order. It was further observed that, in case, petitioner surrenders and thereafter, moves an application for bail, same be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of three days. Instead of surrendering before the learned trial Court in terms of the aforesaid order, petitioner chose to file an application seeking anticipatory bail, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar, vide the impugned order dated 27.05.2026. 4. While declining the prayer for anticipatory bail, the learned Court below also noticed that petitioner had earlier been granted regular bail JAWALA RAM 2026.07.21 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM-M-32667-2026 - 3 - and that he had remained absent from the proceedings without any intimation to the Court since 05.04.2010. The learned Court further observed that, despite the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner neither surrendered before the trial Court nor sought regular bail, but instead filed an application for anticipatory bail, which had never been contemplated or permitted by the order dated 07.05.2026 passed by this Court. Once petitioner had already been granted the concession of regular bail in the said case, which subsequently stood cancelled on account of his absence, the maintainability of a petition seeking anticipatory bail, instead of surrendering before the trial Court and seeking regular bail in terms of the order dated 07.05.2026, would require consideration. 5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that, in fact, petitioner has already appeared and then surrendered before concerned trial Court, and in view of this, present petition has been rendered infructuous and same may be disposed of as such. 6. Dismissed as infructuous. Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE July 20, 2026 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2026.07.21 18:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document