Surekha Mankotia And Anr vs Sanjeev Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 15630 P&H

CRM-M-55946-2022                                              -1-

118
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-55946-2022
                                        Date of Decision:02.12.2022

SUREKHA MANKOTIA AND ANR                                  ......... Petitioners

                                    Versus
SANJEEV KUMAR                                             ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :   Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

                   ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

Through instant petition under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order

dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by Trial Court whereby the

petitioners have been declared as proclaimed person in complaint case

No. 1937/2022 dated 02.07.2022 filed under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that

petitioners are neither directors nor employees of M/s Asian Nutrition

Private Limited which issued cheque in question. The petitioner No.1

preferred revision before Sessions Court against summoning order dated

18.07.2022 which vide order dated 21.09.2022 directed that in the

meantime petitioner shall not be arrested. Learned Trial Court despite

orders passed by ASJ, Bathinda has passed order of proclamation. The

Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants on 03.08.2022 and without

issuing fresh NBW initiated proceedings of proclamation and thereafter

vide order 31.10.2022 declared the petitioner as proclaimed offender. The

1 of 4

orders have been passed in haste and summons/warrants were never

served upon the petitioners. The respondent intentionally furnished

wrong address resultantly, summons/warrants were not pasted at

conspicuous part of the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner is not

involved in any other FIR. The lapse, if any, was unintentional and

petitioner is ready to pay costs of Rs.50,000/-.

Intent of arrest and reason of denial of bail is to secure the

appearance of the accused at the time of trial. A person who seeks to be

liberated must take judgment and serve sentence in the event of his

conviction. The nature of the crime charged, severity of punishment

prescribed, prime facie available evidences, history & background of the

accused may indicate that any amount of bond and surety is not going to

secure presence of accused, at the time of conviction.

The object of arrest is neither punitive nor preventive.

Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right

of personal liberty guaranteed by article 21 but also freedom guaranteed

by article 19(1) of our Constitution. Life of every human being is most

precious gift of God and everyone has very limited span of life which

cannot be spoiled on account of incompetence, personal grudge,

vengeance of someone; or brutal, illegal, unethical action of the State

machinery. Except habitual offender, commoners living simple life after

arrest lose self-respect and confidence within himself as well State. It has

become very common to put criminal law in motion even though dispute

involved is purely contractual or civil in nature. Many times arrest entails

deprivation of source of income of entire family besides forever stigma in

a closely knit society like ours. There is neither mechanism to

2 of 4

compensate a man who is later on found innocent nor acquittal can return

valuable time, energy, status, future of family members especially

children which is lost on account of incarceration of bread earner of the

family. Imprisonment before conviction is a sort of punishment especially

when rate of conviction in our country is abysmally low.

Keeping in mind:

i) The object of cancellation of bond or declaration of anyone as

proclaimed offender/person is to secure his presence. The

petitioner has come forward to face trial and undertakes to

appear before trial court on each and every date, thus ,his

presence would meet ends of justice;

ii) The Petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of courts as

well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs. 50,000/-;

iii) The Petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the satisfaction

of the trial court;

iv) The Petitioner is not involved in any other offence;

v) The petitioner No.1 was granted interim protection by

Revisionary Court still Trial Court passed impugned order.

vi) The petitioner is accused of commission of bailable and

compoundable offence.

vii) Trial pending against petitioners is a complaint case and

petitioner is ready to face trial, thus, no prejudice is going to

cause to prosecution or complainant;

this court is of the considered opinion that present petition needs to be

3 of 4

allowed, and accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed

to appear before learned Trial Court on or before 29.12.2022 and on his

doing so, the Trial Court shall admit him to bail on furnishing bail bonds

alongwith costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the District Legal Services

Authority, Bathinda.

Disposed of in above terms.

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
02.12.2022
Ali


                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No

                       Whether Reportable       Yes/No




                                 4 of 4