Jagjeet vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 17318 P&H

            CRM-M-59497-2022                         :1:

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

114                              CRM-M-59497-2022
                                 Date of Decision: December 20, 2022
Jagjeet
                                                     ...Petitioner

                                    Versus
State of Haryana
                                                     ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:-   Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, 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 04.08.2021 (Annexure P-3),

passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar whereby the

petitioner has been erroneously declared as a proclaimed offender.

Learned counsel submits that petitioner was granted bail in FIR

lodged against him. He was unable to appear before the trial Court on

01.02.2020 whereby warrants of arrest were issued against him and co-

accused Parveen. The petitioner was declared proclaimed offender vide

order dated 04.08.2021 (Annexure P-3). It is the submission that non-

appearance of the petitioner was neither intentional nor wilful but for

reasons beyond his control as he had suffered covid-19 and after long

struggle with the said ailment, though, he revived but unfortunately suffered

from Jaundice, for which he was under treatment in Rajasthan and Madhya

Pradesh by an Ayurveda Vaid and did not have any notice or warrants

served on him. On having come to know of the order passed against him, he

filed anticipatory bail application before the Court of Additional Sessions

1 of 4

CRM-M-59497-2022 :2:

Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2022. He submits that

petitioner was under wrong impression that the presence of the accused in

Court is not necessary during Covid-19 period and he himself was

restrained to be in contact with public on account of he having suffered the

said ailment.

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, which may even be,

subject to payment of costs. 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 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.

Ms. Aditi Girdhar, AAG, Haryana, 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 suffering from Covid-19 and Jaundice, thus could not appear

before the trial Court, leading to the passing of the impugned order, which

2 of 4

CRM-M-59497-2022 :3:

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.

In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the

judgments referred to above, the impugned order 04.08.2021 (Annexure P-

3), is set aside, subject to deposit of Rs.10,000/- with the Bar Welfare

Association, Hissar. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial

Court on or before 28.12.2022 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.

                                      3 of 4

             CRM-M-59497-2022                        :4:

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 20, 2022                                  (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
Rimpal                                                JUDGE

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




                                     4 of 4