Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-31689-2022
Date of Decision: 22.07.2022
Nirmal Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Ms. Avneet Kaur, Advocate for
Mr. Digvijay Nagpal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the
order dated 07.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Judge, Special
Court, Mansa, whereby warrant of arrest was issued against the
petitioner, cancelling his bail, in case bearing FIR No.106 dated
19.11.2021, registered at Police Station Jhunir, District Mansa, under
Sections 22 and 29 NDPS Act, 1985.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that vide order
dated 23.12.2021 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Mansa, the
petitioner had been granted the benefit of regular bail; that the petitioner
had been regularly appearing before the trial Court; that Clerk of the
Advocate before the trial Court had wrongly noted down the date, as
07.06.2022 instead of 07.05.2022 and, therefore, the petitioner could not
appear before the trial Court on 07.05.2022; that due to non-appearance
of the petitioner on 07.05.2022, his bail was cancelled and warrant of
arrest was issued against him; that absence of the petitioner before the
trial Court was not intentional and rather was for the reason that a wrong
date had been noted down, and that the petitioner is now ready to appear
before the trial Court.
1 of 2
CRM-M-31689-2022 /2/
Notice of motion.
On the asking of this Court, Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG,
Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State, and submits that
the trial Court has rightly issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The objective of the coercive mechanism prescribed under
the Code of Criminal Procedure is to ensure that the accused remains
present before the Court to receive the orders and judgments as are
passed qua him. The absence of the petitioner before the Court below
appears to be non-intentional. If the accused shows his sincere intention
and desire to appear before the Court, then it would be justified to protect
him from being arrested.
The petitioner absented himself from the court proceedings.
He is now not required for any investigation or interrogation purposes
and rather, he is only to face the trial. Therefore, no useful purpose would
be served by sending the petitioner to custody.
Keeping in view the above fact, the impugned order dated
07.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and the petitioner is directed to
surrender before the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, within 15 days from
today, subject to him depositing the costs of Rs.10,000/- with the District
Legal Services Authority, Mansa. On his doing so, the petitioner shall be
released on anticipatory bail, subject to him furnishing the fresh
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
Disposed of.
22.07.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Note: Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
