Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/32195/2026 of RISHI PAL Vs STATE OF HARYANA on 23 July 2026
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.32195 of 2026 Date of decision: 23.07.2026 Rishi Pal …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present :- None for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana. *****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.32195 of 2026
Date of decision: 23.07.2026
Rishi Pal
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
…Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL
Present :-
None for the petitioner.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jangra, AAG, Haryana.
*****
H.S.GREWAL, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 14.03.2023 passed in FIR No.127 dated 31.03.2021 under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (Haryana Amendment Bill, 2020) registered at Police Station Thanesar Sadar, Kuruskshetra whereby he was declared as proclaimed person.
2. On the previous date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought an adjournment to address arguments. Today, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was no longer residing at his given address since June, 2022, as he had left for Italy. The FIR was registered on 31.03.2021 and the petitioner was arrested on the same day and was subsequently released on bail. However, during SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.24 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M No.32195 of 2026
the pendency of the proceedings, he left the country without obtaining permission from the concerned Court and failed to appear before the trial Court. Thus, the petitioner has violated the conditions of his bail and deliberately avoided the judicial proceedings.
4. In view of the above facts, no ground is made out for interference with the impugned order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed person.
5. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(H.S.GREWAL) 23.07.2026
JUDGE seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
SEEMA SHARMA 2026.07.24 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment