Lokesh Kumar vs State Of Ut, Chandigarh And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 14811 P&H

CRM-M-54100-2022                                                -1-

135
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                          CRM-M-54100-2022
                                          Date of Decision: 21.11.2022

LOKESH KUMAR                                                ......... Petitioner

                                      Versus

STATE OF UT, CHANDIGARH AND ANR.                            ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :      Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

               Mr. Ankur Bali, APP U.T. Chandigarh.

                     ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

Through instant petition under Section 482 of Code of

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

12.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,

Chandigarh whereby bail bonds furnished by the petitioner have been

cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest are issued against the

petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner

was released on regular bail and thereafter regularly appeared before

learned Trial Court. The alleged offence is bailable and compoundable.

The petitioner has already paid a substantial amount to the private

respondent. The petitioner was under impression that respondent is going

to withdraw his complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner is ready to pay costs of

Rs.10,000/-.

1 of 4

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.

The object of arrest is neither punitive nor preventive.

Detention or arrest not only deprives a person from his fundamental right

of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 but also freedom guaranteed

by Article 19(1) of our Constitution. Life of every human being is most

precious gift of God and everyone has very limited span of life which

cannot be spoiled on account of incompetence, personal grudge,

vengeance of someone; or brutal, illegal, unethical action of the State

machinery. Except habitual offender, commoners living simple life after

arrest lose self-respect and confidence within himself as well State. It has

become very common to put criminal law in motion even though dispute

involved is purely contractual or civil in nature. Many times arrest entails

deprivation of source of income of entire family besides forever stigma

in a closely knit society like ours. There is neither mechanism to

compensate a man who is later on found innocent nor acquittal can return

valuable time, energy, status, future of family members especially

children which is lost on account of incarceration of bread earner of the

family. Imprisonment before conviction is a sort of punishment

especially when rate of conviction in our country is abysmally low.

Keeping in mind:

2 of 4

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. 10,000/-;

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

satisfaction of the trial court;

iv) The Petitioner is not involved in any other offence

except cheque dishonor of cheques;

v) The petitioner is resident of Chandigarh and trial is

pending at Chandigarh thus jurisdictional court and

police authorities have direct access over the

activities of the petitioner.

vi) The petitioner was initially granted regular bail by

Trial Court and petitioner thereafter on many date

appeared before trial court;

vii) The petitioner is accused of commission of bailable

and compoundable offence.

viii) Trial is pending since 2020 and petitioner is ready to

face trial, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to

prosecution or complainant;

this court is of the considered opinion that present petition

3 of 4

needs to be allowed, and accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner

is directed to appear before Trial Court on 29.11.2022 and furnish fresh

bail bond/surety bond to its satisfaction. The petitioner, as agreed shall

pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to respondent No.2.

Disposed of.

(JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 21.11.2022 Ali

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

4 of 4