Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 6 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
113 CRM-M-56807-2022
Date of Decision: 06.12.2022
PARDEEP KUMAR ...Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Punjab
ae 2 oe
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner through instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is
seeking quashing of order dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by CJM,
Patiala, in Case No. COMA-6285 of 2018, vide which the bail order of the
petitioner has been cancelled and petitioner has been ordered to be summoned
through non-bailable warrants. The petitioner is further seeking quashing of order
dated 19.10.2022 (Annexure P-11) whereby petitioner has been ordered to be
summoned through proclamation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the
petitioner appeared before trial Court on 15.05.2019 and on the same day was
granted regular bail. The petitioner was regularly appearing before trial Court
which is evident from zimni orders (Annexure P-2 to P-10). The petitioner failed
to appear on 14.09.2022 on account of noting wrong date. The non-appearance
was neither intentional nor wilful. It is a complaint case and alleged offence is
bailable offence. The petitioner is not involved in any other offence. The
petitioner is ready to face the trial. The petitioner is ready to pay costs of
Rs.10,000/-. No prejudice is going to be caused to the prosecution if an
opportunity is granted to the petitioner.
MOHIT KUMAR
Tattest to the accuracy and Notice of motion.
authenticity of this order/judgment
Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of
respondent-State and submits that State has no objection if the present petition is
disposed of, subject to costs.
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.
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.10,000/-
(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 is accused of commission of bailable offence
and petitioner is facing trial of complaint case;
(vi) Trial is pending since 2018 and petitioner is ready to face trial,
thus, no prejudice is going to be caused to prosecution or
complainant;
MOHIT KUMAR
2022.12.06 15:13
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
this court is of the considered opinion that present petition needs to
be allowed, and accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to
appear before trial Court on or before 27.12.2022 and on his doing so, the trial
court shall release him on bail on his furnishing bail bonds. The petitioner, as
agreed, shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the District Legal Services Authority,
Patiala.
Disposed of in above terms.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
06.12.2022
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
MOHIT KUMAR
2022.12.06 15:13
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
