Vivek vs State Of Haryana
2021 Latest Caselaw 3079 P&H

224                          CRM-M-35287-2021(O&M)                              -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                                                CRM-M-35287-2021 (O&M)
                                                Date of decision: 29.10.2021

Vivek                                                           ...Petitioner

                                       Versus

State of Haryana                                                ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:-    Mr. K.L. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Surender Singh, AAG Haryana.

             ****

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 711 dated 28.07.2017,

registered under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 342 IPC, (Sections 325, 307,

341, 120-B and 34 IPC were added later on), at Police Station City Jind,

District Jind.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, regular

bail was granted to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Jind, vide order dated 14.03.2018. The petitioner was regularly appearing

before the Court, but on 04.10.2019, he could not appear before the Court as

he was not well on that day and ultimately, on 15.02.2020 he was declared a

proclaimed offender and was re-arrested on 12.02.2021. He has already

undergone a period of more than one year.

Learned State counsel, while vehemently opposing the prayer for

1 of 2

224 CRM-M-35287-2021(O&M) -2-

bail, submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and was declared a

proclaimed offender. However, he does not dispute the custody period of the

petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under the

Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that the accused remains present

before the Court to receive the orders and judgments as are passed qua the

accused. The non-appearance of the petitioner from the Court was not

intentional and now he has been in custody since 12.02.2021. The

conclusion of the trial would take a long time, therefore, no useful purpose

would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

In view of the above, without commenting anything on the

merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the petition is allowed

and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing

bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty

Magistrate.

                                             (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
                                                   JUDGE
29.10.2021
Mangal Singh


               Whether reasoned/speaking?       Yes/No
               Whether reportable?              Yes/No




                                    2 of 2