Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paras Magoo vs State Of Punjab on 19 December, 2022
CRM-M-59196-2022 (O&M) -1-
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59196-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:19.12.2022
PARAS MAGOO ......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present :
Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
CRM-49190-2022
Exemption application allowed as prayed for.
CRM-M-59196-2022
Through instant petition under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order
dated 17.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Balachaur, whereby bail bonds furnished by the petitioner
have been cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest are issued
against the petitioner in FIR No.98 dated 06.08.2018 under Section 279,
of IPC 1860 read with Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act 1914,
registered at Police Station Kathgarh, District Saheed Bhagat Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
FIR was registered on 06.08.2018 and petitioner was arrested. The
petitioner was released on regular bail on 20.08.2018. The maximum
sentence prescribed under Section 279 of IPC and Section 61 of Excise
Act is less than 3 years. The Trial Court had framed charges on
1 of 3
CRM-M-59196-2022 (O&M) -2-
04.09.2019 and petitioner continued to appear from 2018 to July, 2022.
The prosecution from September, 2019 to 17.08.2022 has not examined
even a single witness. The petitioner is suffering from skin disease
known as psoriasis which is an incurable disease. The petitioner is
suffering from rashes, itching and scary patches which are very painful.
Non appearance was unintentional and beyond the control of the
petitioner.
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
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 is ready to furnish bond/surety to the
2 of 3
CRM-M-59196-2022 (O&M) -3-
satisfaction of the trial court;
iii) The petitioner is resident of District Jalandhar and trial is
pending at Saheed Bhagat Singh, thus jurisdictional court
and police authorities have direct access over the activities
of the petitioner.
iv) The petitioner was initially granted regular bail by learned
Sessions Judge, Balachaur on 20.08.2018 and petitioner
thereafter on many dates appeared before trial court;
v) Trial is pending since 2018 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
allowed, and accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed
to appear before learned Trial Court on or before 23.01.2023 and on his
doing so, the Trial Court shall admit him 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
