Surjit Singh @ Chiranji vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 14660 P&H

CRM-M-47247-2022                                              1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

Sr. No.118                                 CRM-M-47247-2022
                                           Date of decision : 18.11.2022

Surjit Singh @ Chirangi
                                                       .....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

State of Punjab
                                                       ..... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:     Mr.Subhash Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

for setting aside the order dated 10.12.2021, Annexure P-4, passed by

learned trial Court, vide which the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled

and non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against him in case

FIR No.46 dated 13.3.2020, registered under Section 22 of NDPS Act At

Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar.

Learned counsel contends that the FIR was registered against

the petitioner on 13.3.2020, wherein he was arrested on the same day.

Thereafter, vide order dated 27.5.2020 passed by learned trial Court, there

being custody of almost 2½ months, the petitioner was released on interim

bail till the receipt of the report of the chemical examiner. He further

contends that till January, 2022, due to Covid-19 Pandemic there was

restricted functioning of the Court and the petitioner was not aware of the

dates, on which the matter was taken up, consequently, on 31.8.2021,

11.10.2021 and 10.12.2021, he was unable to appear before the trial Court

1 of 5

for the aforesaid reason. He further submits that the summons were not

received by him at the permanent address, where he was residing and did

not move out due to lockdown during the said period except for the purpose

of his job. None of his family members were also had received any

notice/summon from the trial Court for his appearance. He submits that had

the summons been received, the petitioner would have definitely appeared

before the trial Court. He further submits that the absence of the petitioner

before the trial Court was neither intentional nor deliberate, however, was

for the reasons aforesaid. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing

to join the proceedings, for which he prays for grant of only one

opportunity, which may even be subject to imposition of costs or any other

conditions, which this Court may deem appropriate to impose. In support of

his submissions, he relies on Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-

38277-2022, decided on 26.8.2022, Naveen Rao vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) ACB, Chandigarh, CRM-M-29461-2018, decided on

18.7.2018, Dimple Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2017(1) RCR (Crl.), 602

and 'Sonu Sharda vs. State of Punjab' CRM-M-16648-2020 decided on

1.6.2020.

Notice of motion.

At the asking of the Court, Mr.Gurdarshan Singh, AAG,

Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He submits that the

order passed by the trial Court being well reasoned, the present petition

deserves to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Court in the case of Naveen Rao (supra) has held thus:-

2 of 5

"In the present case also, the bail/surety bonds have been cancelled as the petitioner left India without prior permission of the Court. An application for exemption from personal appearance was also moved, which was dismissed. The petitioner is NRI and he went abroad without seeking any permission from the Court, which has been stated to be inadvertent as he did not go through the terms and conditions of bail but the circumstances were beyond his control. The petitioner immediately came back to India and came to know that his bail bonds have been cancelled. There was no intention on his part to remain absent or to avoid the Court proceedings. The petitioner remained ill when he was abroad, remained there for a period of 20 days and could not come back immediately."

Further in case of Dimple Kumar (supra), it has been held by

this Court :-

"2. The petitioner herein was arrested under the said FIR on 11.04.2015. Thereafter, a petition bearing CRM-M No. 15196 of 2015 was filed in this Court in which the petitioner was released on regular bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana by an order dated 14.05.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner herein did not put in appearance before the trial Court on the date so fixed i.e. 25.10.2016 and sought exemption on the ground that he is suffering from viral fever. The Court took notice of the fact that the petitioner herein had sought similar exemptions on several occasions and came to the conclusion that the accused is habitual in seeking exemptions and direction was issued to ensure his presence failing which serious view would be taken against him. Since the petitioner did not put in appearance as directed by an order dated 12/26.09.2016 and preferred an application seeking exemption on the ground that he is suffering from viral fever, the Court came to conclusion that the ground of exemption did not seem to be genuine. Resultantly, the bail bonds of the petitioner herein were cancelled and it was ordered that he be summoned through non-bailable warrants for 15.11.2016.

3. x xx

4. In view of the fact that the petitioner is willing to furnish an undertaking, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order dated 25.10.2016 is set aside. The petitioner herein is directed to approach the trial Court within a week and move an application to furnish the said undertaking. On doing so,

3 of 5

the petitioner be enlarged on bail."

The very purpose of issuance of summons, warrants etc. 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 it was

due to unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not appear before the

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

be justified explanation of absence. 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 deserves to be allowed.

This petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated

dated 10.12.2021, Annexure P-4,, is set aside, subject to payment of costs of

Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Funds, PGIMER,

Chandigarh. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court on

or before 24.11.2022 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.

4 of 5

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.

18.11.2022                                        (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
gsv                                                    JUDGE

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




                                  5 of 5