Sunil Kumar Singla vs State Of Punjab And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 17344 P&H

CRM-M-59630-2022                                                      -1-

113     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-59630-2022
                                         Date of Decision:20.12.2022

SUNIL KUMAR SINGLA                                        ......... Petitioner

                                     Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER                               ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :      Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

       Mr. Amish Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
            ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

Through instant petition under Section 482 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner is seeking quashing of order

dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure P-7) and 22.11.2022 (Annexure P-8)

passed by SDJM, Samana, whereby bail bonds furnished by the

petitioner have been cancelled and the petitioner has been declared

proclaimed person in complaint No. NIA/749/2017 dated 18.12.2017

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that

petitioner appeared before Trial Court on 03.12.2019 and was released

on bail. Notice of accusation was issued on 18.01.2020. The petitioner

continuously appeared before the Trial Court, however, on account of

illness of his brother could not appear on 24.12.2021 who ultimately

passed away on 30.12.2021. The petitioner is not involved in any other

FIR. The lapse was unintentional and petitioner is ready to pay costs of

Rs.10,000/-.

1 of 3

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 for wasting valuable time and energy of

courts as well prosecution is willing to pay costs of Rs.

Rs.10,000/-.

iii) The Petitioner is ready to furnish bond/surety to the

satisfaction of the trial court;

iv) The petitioner is resident of Samana, District Patiala and

trial is pending at Samana, thus jurisdictional court and

police authorities have direct access over the activities of

2 of 3

the petitioner.

v) The petitioner was initially granted regular bail by learned

Trial Court, Samana and thereafter petitioner appeared on

many dates;

vi) Trial is pending since 2017 and petitioner is ready to face

trial, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to prosecution or

complainant;

vii) The petitioner is accused of commission of bailable and

compoundable offence.

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 31.12.2023

and on his doing so, the Trial Court shall admit him to bail on furnishing

fresh bail bonds alongwith costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to respondent

No.2.

Disposed of in above terms.

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 20.12.2022 Ali

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3