Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh @ Mani vs State Of Punjab on 19 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43240-2022
Date of decision: 19.09.2022
Baljit Singh @ Mani
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for
Mr. Vikas Dahiya, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in
case bearing FIR No.53 dated 07.04.2020, registered at Police Station
Dakha, District Ludhiana, under Section 22 NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the grant
of regular bail, the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial
Court; that however, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court
on 04.04.2022, following which his bail was cancelled and warrant of
arrest had been issued against him; that the petitioner has never been
declared a proclaimed offender in the present case; that the petitioner could
not appear before the trial Court due to some unavoidable reasons and his
absence was not intentional, and that the petitioner is now ready to appear
before the trial Court.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of this Court, Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, Sr. DAG,
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.
1 of 2
CRM-M-43240-2022 /2/
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 facts and circumstances of the present
case, but without going into the merits of the case, the present petition is
allowed 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.15,000/- with the District Legal Services
Authority, Ludhiana. 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.
19.09.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
2 of 2
