Dharambir vs Such Agra Implements And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 17208 P&H

            THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

236                                           CRM-M-13112-2022
                                              Date of Decision: 19.12.2022

Dharambir                                                       ...Petitioner

                                   Versus

Such Agra Implements and Another                              ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present:-   Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, Advocate,
            for the petitioner
            Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate,
            for respondent No.1
       Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana
       *****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C. is seeking quashing of order dated 09.03.2022 (Annexure P-5)

and order dated 17.03.2022 (Annexure P-6) whereby Additional

Sessions Judge, Panipat, has dismissed the application of the

petitioner for exemption from personal appearance and has issued

warrants of arrests in Appeal CIS No.CRA 255/2019 which is pending

against order of conviction in complaint under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that

petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year and

6 months by the Trial Court. The petitioner preferred an appeal before

Appellate Court which accepted bail bond of the petitioner and ordered

to release on bail. The petitioner on account of injury on his person

could not appear before the Appellate Court on 09.03.2022. The

petitioner moved application seeking exemption which came to be

1 of 4

rejected and non-bailable warrants were issued. The petitioner is ready

and willing to appear before appellate court and furnish fresh bail

bonds. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. The petitioner

in the present case has been convicted under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. The absence of the petitioner was neither

intentional nor willful. The petitioner is ready to pay costs of

Rs.10,000/- for his failure to appear before Appellate Court. No

prejudice is going to be caused to the complainant if an opportunity is

granted to the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Ashit Malik, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and

Mr. Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana submit that they have 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 appellate court on

2 of 4

each and every date, thus, his presence would meet

ends of justice;

(ii) The petitioner preferred an appeal before Appellate

Court which accepted bail bond of the petitioner and

ordered to release on bail;

(iii) The petitioner for wasting valuable time and energy of

courts as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of

Rs.10,000/-;

(iv) The petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the

satisfaction of the appellate court;

(v) The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal

case;

(vi) The petitioner is resident of Panipat and trial is

pending at Panipat, thus jurisdictional court and police

authorities have direct access over the activities of the

petitioner;

(vii) Trial is pending since 2019 and petitioner is ready to

face appellate proceedings, thus, no prejudice is going

to be caused to the complainant;

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 the Appellate Court on or

before 21.01.2023 and on his doing so, the appellate court shall

3 of 4

release him on bail on his furnishing bail bonds. The petitioner, as

agreed, shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant.

Disposed of in above terms.

                                                      (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                            JUDGE
19.12.2022
Mohit Kumar




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




                                    4 of 4