Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjeet Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 19 December, 2022
CRM-M-59170-2022 -1-
123 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59170-2022
Date of Decision:19.12.2022
MANJEET SINGH AND ANOTHER ......... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
Through instant petition under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioners are seeking quashing of
impugned order dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by Sessions
Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby bail bonds furnished by the petitioner
have been cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest are issued
against the petitioner in FIR No.144 dated 21.09.2017 (Annexure P-1),
under Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 52-A Prison
Act, 1894, registered at Police Station Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib District
Sri Muktsar Sahib.
Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that
petitioners were arrested in the aforesaid FIR and released on bail on
09.04.2018 and 03.12.2018 respectively. The petitioners continued to
appear before Trial Court from 2018 to 2021, however, in the month of
December, 2021 they went to Gujarat to get work of labour. On account
of this reasons, they failed to appear before Trial Court in January, 2022
1 of 3
and accordingly Trial Court vide order dated 19.07.2022 cancelled bail
bonds and ordered to secure presence through non-bailable warrants.
The petitioners are ready to join the investigation and face
the trial. They are regularly appearing before Trial Court since 2018 and
if present petition is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the
prosecution rather it would serve the purpose of the prosecution. The
petitioners are poor labour and undertake to appear on each and every
date.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of Court, Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Punjab
accepts notice on behalf of the State. He does not dispute the above
stated factual position. He has no objection, if petition is disposed of.
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
petitioners have 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 Petitioners are ready to furnish bond/surety to the
2 of 3
satisfaction of the trial court;
iii) The petitioners are resident of District Fazika and trial is
pending at Sri Muktsar Sahib, thus jurisdictional court and
police authorities have direct access over the activities of
the petitioner.
iv) The petitioners were initially granted regular bail by learned
Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 09.04.2018 &
03.12.2018 respectively and petitioners thereafter on many
dates appeared before trial court;
v) Trial is pending since 2018 and petitioners are ready to face
trial, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to prosecution;
this court is of the considered opinion that present petition needs
to be allowed, and accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioners are
directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 20.12.2022 and on their
doing so, the Trial Court shall admit them to bail on furnishing fresh bail
bonds.
Disposed of in above terms.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
19.12.2022
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
