Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagga Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
128
CRM-M-45081-2022
Decided on : 28.09.2022
Jagga Singh
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Gurbir Singh Sidhu, Advocate with
Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 13.05.2022 (Annexure P-3),
whereby, bail granted to the petitioner is cancelled and non-bailable warrants
of arrest has been issued on account of non-appearance on 13.05.2022 before
the Court, in case FIR No. 99, dated 25.06.2019, under Sections 22 & 29 of
the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity,
'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the main case
under the NDPS Act, no recovery was effected from the petitioner, and the
recovery effected from the co-accused was of non-commercial quantity. He
further submits that initially he was granted bail by the Ld. Special Court,
Sangrur, vide order dated 18.11.2019 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, petitioner
had been appearing on each and every date before the Court concerned
except of prior permission of the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that reason of
not appearing on 13.05.2022 before the Court has been well explained in
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.29 12:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
paragraph 5 of the present petition, which says as under:-
"5. That it is also worth to record here on 13.05.2022
inadvertently the petitioner did not put in appearance before the
court on one occasion due to impression in mind that the fixed
date is 16.05.2022 and therefore on such default the ld. Trial
Court cancelled his bail and non bailable warrants were issued
against the petitioner. The copy of the impugned order is
attached herewith as Annexure P-3."
In view of the aforementioned background, learned counsel
further contends that, if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to appear
and then to grant him bail, subject to payment of some cost, he undertakes
that in all the future proceedings of the present case, he will never be absent
from the Court except on obtaining prior permission by the Court and will-
fully cooperate in the Court proceedings for early completion of trial.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab, who is
present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.
A copy of the complete paper book has been supplied to him by
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned State counsel opposes the request of the petitioner, and
submits that such person, who is involved in the serious offences such as
under the NDPS Act, does not deserve any sympathy. Therefore, petitioner
should be directed to surrender before the Court and to face trial.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record. It is evident that in the main case under the
NDPS Act, no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, moreover,
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.29 12:01
contraband, which was recovered from the co-accused - Karamjeet Singh,
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
was of the non-commercial quantity, which was 08 grams of intoxicated
powder.
This Court is also of the view that paramount consideration of
the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for
speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with
so much litigations, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one
reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the
proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get
hold of them.
Therefore, in the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that
if petitioner is given one chance to appear before the trial Court, subject to
payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be deposited with the District Legal
Services Authority, Sangrur, purpose of securing his presence would be
served and lot of exercise, time and energy can be saved.
Therefore, it is directed that if petitioner on his own appears
before the learned trial Court on or before 10.10.2022, he would be released
on bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner would submit specific
undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of
the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of his
conduct.
In view of above, the present petition is allowed.
However, it is made clear that the bail order would be subject to
the deposit of an amount of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the District
Legal Services Authority, Sangrur.
Needless to mention here that on compliance of all the
conditions mentioned hereinabove, impugned order dated 13.05.2022
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.29 12:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
(Annexure P-3) and the subsequent orders would become inoperative qua the
petitioner.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
September 28, 2022
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
JAWALA RAM
2022.09.29 12:01
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
