Panchkula: Accused on the run for 10 years denied pre-arrest bail

Accused Sandeep Sharma, alias Amandeep Sharma, hailing from Dehradun, Uttarakhand, was first summoned by a Kalka court in connection with a complaint case under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, vide order dated July 7, 2012

A Panchkula court has dismissed the anticipatory bail of an accused who filed the bail application 10 years after he was declared as proclaimed offender (PO) in a cheating case.

The Panchkula court noted that Sharma’s father, a co-accused in the cheating case, had been appearing before the trial court in Kalka. When his father himself was an accused and facing trial in the said complaint, it did not sound good to logic that Sharma had no knowledge of the pendency of the complaint, the court remarked. (iStock)

Referring to a 2012 Supreme Court judgment, the court of sessions judge Ved Parkash Sirohi held that it was settled law that where the accused had been declared a proclaimed person, there was no question of granting anticipatory bail. The apex court had taken a similar view in another case in October 2021.

Accused Sandeep Sharma, alias Amandeep Sharma, hailing from Dehradun, Uttarakhand, was first summoned by a Kalka court in connection with a complaint case under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC, vide order dated July 7, 2012.

Sharma was repeatedly summoned, bailable warrants and warrants of arrest were also repeatedly issued against him, but he failed to appear before the court. Ultimately, the court declared him a proclaimed person on October 16, 2015.

In the bail plea, Sharma’s counsel argued that he never received any summons, bailable or non-bailable warrants and he was not aware of the pendency of the complaint. The said orders came to the knowledge of the petitioner after his brother received summons in 2025, pertaining to a civil appeal case in which the petitioner was also a party.

However, the Panchkula court noted that Sharma’s father, a co-accused in the cheating case, had been appearing before the trial court in Kalka. When his father himself was an accused and facing trial in the said complaint, it did not sound good to logic that Sharma had no knowledge of the pendency of the complaint, the court remarked.

It further observed that the petitioner had been absconding for more than 10 years and had not disclosed any good grounds for his absence for such a long period. “Thus, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and other attending circumstances, no case for grant of anticipatory bail on merits is made out,” the court decided, dismissing the bail plea.