ORDER : Petitioner has approached this Court invoking Section 482 Cr.PC seeking interim relief not to arrest him being a Proclaimed Offender declared by the trial Court in case FIR No. 27 of 2017, dated 15.2.2017 registered in Police Station Theog, District Shimla under Sections 307, 451, 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Section 25 of Arms Act with liberty to join criminal proceedings in the trial Court in accordance with law. 2. Status report stands filed. Record was also made available. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 7.2.2017 complainant Bala Nand had submitted a complaint under Section 154 Cr.PC in Police Station Theog stating that his younger daughter, after solemnizing her marriage according to her liking two weeks ago, came to parental house along with his son-in-law and after having snacks, they went to his brother’s house situated at some distance and at about 4 PM, his son-in-law, Vipin (brother of his son-in-law) and his daughters Reeta and Meenakshi came back and when they reached near his house, petitioner/accused rushed having gun in his hand and asked Reeta in loud voice to stop with threat to kill her. Whereupon, his daughters, son-in-law and his wife rushed inside the house and when his daughter Reeta was closing the door, petitioner opened fire causing injury in the head of complainant, in back and waist of Reeta and neck and chest of his wife Savitri, and Reeta was seriously inured. On hearing noise of gunshot, complainant’s brother Matha Ram, Prakash and Pradhan Susheela Devi came on spot but by that time petitioner Jagdish Chand fled from spot, after pelting stones on roof of house of complainant with the at that he will kill them all one by one. Injured were taken to hospital for treatment. 4. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR was registered and investigation started. 5. Petitioner Jagdish Chand was searched in the village and other places, but he was not traceable anywhere despite inquiring his villagers and other relatives. Family of petitioner had also expressed inability to reveal whereabouts of petitioner Jagdish Chand for ignorance about it. 6. As per status report, during investigation, petitioner Jagdish Chand was seached in Veergarh, Kotkhai, Jubbal, Rohru, Shimla, Chandigarh and many places in Haryana, but he was not traceable. 7. Family of petitioner had also expressed inability to reveal whereabouts of petitioner Jagdish Chand for ignorance about it. 6. As per status report, during investigation, petitioner Jagdish Chand was seached in Veergarh, Kotkhai, Jubbal, Rohru, Shimla, Chandigarh and many places in Haryana, but he was not traceable. 7. To trace and arrest the petitioner, warrants were also issued by Court and when he was not traceable, proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.PC were initiated against him and on 10.4.2019 he was declared Proclaimed Offender and thereafter challan was prepared under Section 299 Cr.PC and submitted in the Court on 29.5.2019 which has now been listed for further orders in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Theog on 23.6.2022. It has been stated in status report that immediately after commission of offence, petitioner had fled and he did not join the investigation and he has to be interrogated and weapon of offence is yet to be recovered from him. 8. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that he is fatherless and is only son of his mother and is sole bread earner in his family, serving as Sales Executive in Delhi since 16.8.2016 in a firm namely Apurvaroy and Associates situated in E-13A, UGF, Back Side, Bengali Colony, Mahavir Enclave South West Delhi and he was serving in the firm prior to the date of incident and thereafter also and he was not aware about registration of aforesaid FIR and he is a law abiding citizen but he was never asked to join the investigation nor was interrogated. He was never summoned by police nor he received any notice by any means of communication. Further that, petitioner is having a good credential and has no antecedents of commission of any other offence. Further that police has not followed procedure in present case as required to be adhered to under the criminal jurisprudence and now it has come in knowledge of petitioner that he has been declared Proclaimed Offender, and therefore, he has approached this Court seeking permission to join the investigation as well as criminal proceedings in trial Court with prayer that he may not be arrested as Proclaimed Offender in present case with liberty to join the criminal proceedings in trial Court in accordance with law by granting him bail. 9. 9. It is matter of record that petitioner had filed a bail application under Section 438 of Cr.PC bearing Cr.MP(M) No. 2099 of 2021 seeking anticipatory bail which was dismissed as withdrawn on 30.10.2021 with liberty to file comprehensive petition under Section 482 Cr.PC and thereafter present petition has been filed. 10. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that he is ready to surrender to custody of this Court with prayer that he may be enlarged on bail and he is ready to join the investigation as well as criminal proceedings in the trial Court and therefore, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by arresting the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for petitioner, for substantiating the submissions made on behalf of petitioner, has referred pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623 as well as pronouncements of High Courts in Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others reported in 1980 Cri.LJ 426; Abdul Rehman vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 Cri. L.J.3113 (Rajasthan High Court); Mehar Singh and another vs. State of Punjab reported in 2010 Cr.LJ 409 (P&H); order dated 7.5.2015 passed by Single Bench of High Court of Gujarat in R/SCR.A/1895/15 titled Patel Vinodbhai Shivram Bhai vs. State of Gujarat; order dated 15.12.2021 passed by Single Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M-051971 of 2021 titled Nirmal Singh and another vs. State of Punjab. 12. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that petitioner is an accused under Section 307 IPC wherein victims have received gunshot injuries and thus hurt has been caused to victims by act of petitioner committed by him with intention to kill and he may be sentenced to imprisonment for life also and therefore, he is not entitled for bail under Section 437 Cr.PC and his conduct dis-entitles him from seeking anticipatory bail and in case he is permitted to surrender in Court and is enlarged on bail then it will amount to grant him anticipatory bail for which he is not entitled and, therefore, prayer for dismissal of petition has been made. 13. 13. Petitioner is an accused for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC wherein hurt has been caused to victim and, therefore, he may be punished and sentenced for imprisonment for life and despite inquiring about his whereabouts from his mother as well wife nothing was disclosed by his family about his place of job as has now been claimed in petition, rather they had expressed their ignorance about his whereabouts. It is not a case that petitioner was absconding after a minor scuffle and, therefore, he would have presumed that FIR may not have been lodged, but it is a case where he had fired at family of complainant not once but repeatedly causing serious injuries to victims and, thereafter he had pelted stones, and, therefore, it was prudent to expect lodging of FIR by victims and only for that reason, petitioner had fled and was not traceable for a long time despite issuance of non-bailable warrants in the year 2018. 14. In Sandeep Kumar Bafna’s case, issue involved was that whether opinion of the High Court, that High Court was devoid of jurisdiction to accept the surrender of accused to Court custody was correct or not and in this pronouncement, taking into consideration its earlier judgment in Niranjan Singh’s case it was concluded by the Supreme Court that High Court has jurisdiction to take a person into its custody on surrender and then proceed further in accordance with law with respect to the bail request of such person and if sufficient grounds had not been disclosed for enlargement on bail, necessary orders for judicial or police custody can be passed by High Court. 15. In present case, this point is not in issue as at no point of time it has been observed that this Court is devoid of power to take accused in custody on surrender. But at the time of considering anticipatory bail application Cr.MP(M) No. 2099 of 2021, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail for the reason that petitioner has been declared as Proclaimed Offender under Section 82 Cr.PC when he was not traceable despite making all out efforts and his family was not disclosing his whereabouts and therefore, petitioner should surrender before the trial Court/concerned Magistrate. 16. 16. On perusal of record, made available to Court, the Court was convinced that petitioner was declared as Proclaimed Offender after following prescribed procedure and therefore, he was not entitled for anticipatory bail. This opinion of Court was based on Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2012 (8) SCC 730 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, reported in 2014 (2) SCC 171 and Lachhman Dass vs. Resham Chand Kaler and another reported in 2018 (3) SCC 187 wherein Supreme Court has observed that when a person was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared absconder as a Proclaimed Offender there is no question of granting him anticipatory bail. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances, bail application filed by petitioner under Section 438 Cr.PC was dismissed as withdrawn. Now accepting the custody of petitioner and enlarging him on bail would be equivalent to granting him anticipatory bail. Whereas, as per prescribed procedure a Proclaimed Offender has to surrender before the Court which has declared him Proclaimed Offender and explain the reasons of his absence and in the event of finding sufficient grounds for his absence or non-availability, the Court may recall declaration of pronouncing him Proclaimed Offender, or otherwise to pass an appropriate order for his police or judicial custody, as the case may be, according to facts and circumstances. 18. In Mehar Singh’s case decided by learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, impugned order declaring the petitioners therein Proclaimed Offenders was set aside for the reason that petitioners were already residing in Canada before registration of FIR and there was no occasion for them to conceal themselves or abscond. Therefore, the facts in the said case were not like present one, where petitioner is permanent resident of village Birgarh and his family did not disclose his whereabouts. 19. In Abdul Rehman’s case proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.PC were dropped against the petitioner by learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court as the said orders were passed without following proper procedure I.e. recording of statements of Process Servers and further the file was sent to Record Room without recording the prosecution evidence which was contrary to provisions of Section 299 Cr.PC. It is not the case in present petition. 20. It is not the case in present petition. 20. In Patel Bhai’s case learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court has quashed and set aside the order declaring the petitioners Proclaimed Offenders. The said order, with due regards, in my opinion, is contrary to pronouncement of Supreme Court referred supra. Similarly order passed by learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nirmal Singh’s case directing the trial Court to enlarge the petitioners therein on bail on furnishing fresh bail bonds and surety bonds after surrendering before trial Court, with due regards, in my opinion is also contrary to law settled by the Supreme Court in Madan Mohan vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 (12) SCC 30 , and Lachhman Dass’s case (Supra) whereby it has been laid down that Court cannot issue mandatory directions which breach the independence of Subordiante Courts and thus, it is not expected from the High Court to pass mandatory orders commanding the Subordiante Courts to compulsorily grant the bail. 21. In the facts and circumstances, material placed before me and in the light of pronouncement of the Supreme Court, I am of the opinin that petitioner is not entitled for relief as prayed in present petition and accordingly, present petition is dismissed with direction to petitioner to surrender before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog on or before 13th May, 2022 for explaining reasons of his non-availability by filing an appropriate application which shall be considered and decided by learned Magistrate in accordance with law and in the given facts and circumstanced placed before him by petitioner as well as prosecution. Till then, i.e. till surrender of petitioner before the Magistrate, petitioner shall not be arrested in furtherance to his declaration as Proclaimed Offender and in case an application is preferred by him, as referred supra, then, till the decision of the said application, he shall not be arrested and after decision of application, he shall be dealt with according to order passed by learned Magistrate. 22 Needless to say that in case of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be entitled for filing appropriate application for enlarging him on bail, if advised so. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.