Jasdeep Singh vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 10909 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
103
                                            CRM-M-38501-2022
                                            Date of decision : 09.09.2022

Jasdeep Singh                                                  Petitioner

                                V/S

State of U.T. Chandigarh and others                         Respondents

CORAM :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

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

            Mr. Deepinder Brar, Addl. Public Prosecutor
            for U.T. Chandigarh.

                                ****

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.')

for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the non-bailable

warrants issued by learned Trial Court in a Complaint No.NACT-

18103-2019 (Annexure P-3) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 due to non-appearance in the Trial Court.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he has not received

any summons from the Court. The petitioner is Combine Harvester

Operator and remained out of State for harvesting the wheat, paddy and

sunflower crops. Due to the absence of the petitioner non-bailable

warrants have been issued against him by the trial Court on 29.04.2022.

Absence of the petitioner in the Court was neither intentional nor

willful. The petitioner undertakes not to remain absent from the trial

in future and and he is ready to surrender before the Trial Court. The

1 of 2

petitioner will abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the Court.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the

present petition on the ground that the petitioner intentionally avoiding

the service of warrants issued by the Court by one way or the other.

Therefore, the present petition may be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned State counsel and gone through the paper-book.

Perusal of the file shows that no sufficient reason has been

given by the petitioner for his none-appearance before the Trial Court.

It is settled proposition of law that when a person against whom a

warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in

order to avoid execution of warrant in terms of Section 82 of the

Cr.P.C, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. This view of

mine is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

State of M.P. Vs. Pradeep Sharma : 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 269.

In view of the above and keeping in view the nature of

averment and conduct of the petitioner, I do not deem it fit to extend the

concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the

trial Court within 15 days from today and shall move an application for

grant of bail before the trial Court which shall be decided by the Trial

Court expeditiously in accordance with law.

09.09.2022                            (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
kothiyal                                     JUDGE
             Whether speaking/reasoned:     Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:            Yes/No


                                 2 of 2