Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumesh Singh Alias Sunny vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2022
CRM-M-57977 of 2022 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
121 CRM-M-57977 of 2022
Date of Decision: December 12, 2022
Sumesh Singh @ Sunny
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Rachit Kaushal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been
filed for quashing the impugned order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-4),
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, whereby the bail order of
the petitioner was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited
to the State.
Learned counsel contends that in the FIR lodged against the
petitioner, he was granted regular bail vide order dated 21.04.2020 by the
trial Court. It is his further submission that final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was presented by the police authorities, whereupon the petitioner
duly appeared and furnished surety before the Court. The father of the
petitioner met with a serious road accident wherein he sustained injuries on
the head causing severe damage to his brain and he was at Sacred Heat
Hospital, Jalandhar, the diagnosis reached by the doctors was "Acute
Subdural Haematoma" and "Post Craniotomy with Evacuation of Clots".
1 of 4
CRM-M-57977 of 2022 :2:
Thus, in medical literature, means bleeding in the brain, and Craniotomy is a
surgical procedure whereby a part of cranial bone is removed to evacuate
blood clots formed between the brain and the skull bone. Medical record of
the father of the petitioner is annexed herewith as Annexure P-3. It is due to
the said injury, the petitioner who is the only son had to take his father to the
hospital numerous times a week and had to assist him in physically for
simple movements like walking also. He had accordingly requested his
counsel before the trial Court to file an application for exemption from
personal appearance, however due to communication gap between the
petitioner and his counsel, the said application could not be filed and the
petitioner was not informed about the date of hearing leading to cancellation
of bail and bail bonds and surety bonds which stood forfeited to the State
by the trial Court vide order dated 20.07.2022, Annexure P4. It is his
submission that since his mother had also expired, there was no one else in
the family to look after his father, who had been seriously injured in the
road accident, that the petitioner was unable to appear before the trial Court.
His absence was thus neither willful nor deliberate but for the reasons
aforesaid.
He, however, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to
join the proceedings, and prays that one opportunity may be granted for the
petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court. In support of his
arguments learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the orders of this
Court in CRM-M-38277-2022 dated 26.08.2022, in the case of "Surjit Singh
Vs. State of Punjab", CRM-M-39000-2022, titled as "Raghav vs. State of
2 of 4
CRM-M-57977 of 2022 :3:
Punjab", decided on 9.9.2022 and CRM-M-36490-2022, "Major Singh vs.
State of Punjab", decided on 15.9.2022.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab who has appeared on
receipt of advance copy of the petition, opposes the petition by submitting
that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned trial Court.
Heard.
The very purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants, is to
compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the
rule of law so as to ensure finalization of the proceedings.
Adverting to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the
petitioner was in hospital with his father, thus could not appear before the
trial Court, leading to the passing of the impugned order, which appears to
be justified explanation of absence. At times, the accused or his counsel can
be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on
a given date and every such absence cannot necessarily be construed as
deliberate and willful. However, it is incumbent upon him to join the
proceedings, before the trial Court, for the culmination of the same.
Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner being not willful or
deliberate and his readiness and willingness to surrender and join the
proceedings, in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no
prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties, rather his joining the
proceedings would help expediting the trial. Thus, in order to make the ends
of justice meet and finding judgments referred to above being applicable to
the instant case, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
3 of 4
CRM-M-57977 of 2022 :4:
In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the
judgments referred to above, the impugned order dated 20.07.2022,
Annexure P-4, is set aside. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the
trial Court on or before 16.12.2022 and furnish his fresh bail/ surety bonds.
On so doing, the trial Court shall release him on bail by imposing surety to
its satisfaction. He is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of his
affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the
trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall also
surrender his passport and will not leave the country without prior
permission of the Court or the trial Court may impose any other condition
that it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that
in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition
shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.
December 12, 2022 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
Rimpal JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
