Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parul @ Parul Yadav And Another vs State Of Punjab on 16 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
107
CRM-M-20802-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.05.2022
PARUL @ PARUL YADAV AND ANOTHER
... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Pardeep Singh Mirpur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners in case bearing FIR No.139 dated 30.07.2020, registered
under Sections 380, 120-B IPC, at Police Station Garhshankar, District
Hoshiarpur and for quashing the PO proceedings initiated against the
petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner
No.1 is a Law student, whose marriage was solemnized with Inderjit
Rana on 03/04.07.2020; that due to temperamental differences, petitioner
No.1 left her matrimonial home on 08.07.2020; that initially, on
28.08.2020, the petitioners were granted the concession of regular bail by
the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and that due to Covid-19
pandemic, the personal appearance of the petitioners were exempted. He
further submits that on 03.03.2020, the learned trial Court, without
following the due procedure of law, has issued the proclamation warrants
against the petitioners and that the petitioners have not been declared as
1 of 3
107 CRM-M-20802-2022 (O&M) -2-
proclaimed persons/offenders till date. Still further, it is submitted that
the petitioners have never been served with the notices as they both are
the residents of State of Rajasthan. He further submits that the
petitioners are again ready and willing to appear before the trial Court.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of this Court, Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG,
Punjab and Dr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for the complainant, accept
notice.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the
petitioners, despite issuance of repeated notices and in order to delay the
proceedings, have intentionally not appeared before the learned trial
Court and that on three dates, the presence of the petitioners could nto be
procured.
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.
Though the petitioners absented themselves from the Court
proceedings, yet the fact remains that they are now not required for any
investigation or interrogation purposes and rather, they are only to face
2 of 3
107 CRM-M-20802-2022 (O&M) -3-
the trial. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the
petitioners to custody.
Keeping in view the above fact, but without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with
a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, within 15 days from today and on their doing so, they shall be
released on bail, subject to their furnishing the fresh bail/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial
Magistrate.
16.05.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
Aman Jain JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
