Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh Alias Akashdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 March, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032744
CRM-M-62213-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-62213-2023
Reserved on: 01.03.2024
Pronounced on: 06.03.2024
Gurpreet Singh @ Akashdeep Singh ...Pe##oner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate
for the pe##oner.
Mr. Gurpartap S. Bhullar, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta#on Sec#ons
135 13.07.2008 City Moga 218, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471,
472, 120-B IPC, 13(2) of PC
Act, 1988 and 12 of Passport
Act, 1967
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the applica#on for releasing FDR on the ground that
the bank guarantee furnished by the pe##oner already stands forfeited to the State, the
pe##oner has come up before this Court under Sec#on 482 CrPC.
2. Vide order dated 20.10.2023, the Addi#onal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, had
dismissed the applica#on for releasing Rs.10 lacs deposited in the shape of FDR, the
details of which have been men#oned in the impugned order.
3. The issue relates to a criminal trial based on FIR No.135 dated 13.07.2008,
registered in Police Sta#on City Moga, Punjab. During the pendency of the trial, the
accused travelled abroad with the permission of the Court and also deposited an
amount of Rs.10 lacs in the shape of FDR. The trial court acquiDed the applicant-
pe##oner vide judgment dated 26.08.2019, and aEer such acquiDal, he applied for the
release of FDR. The said applica#on was dismissed by the concerned Court on
20.10.2023, and the pe##oner challenged the same in this Court by filing CRM-M
No.51534 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2023 and in terms of
the said order, the pe##oner had again moved to the concerned trial Court for releasing
of FDR.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032744
CRM-M-62213-2023
4. A reference to the order reveals that the concerned Court had called for the
records, and it transpired that during the pendency of the trial, vide order dated
28.10.2016, the above bank guarantee, as well as surety bonds, were forfeited to the
State and the said order has been reproduced in the impugned order which reads as
under:-
"Keeping in view the fact that Akashdeep Singh alias Gurpreet
Singh has not reported to this court in fourth week of September
2016, therefore, bank guarantee of Rs.10 lakhs, furnished by
Punjab Na&onal Bank, Ferozepur Road, Moga, personal bond and
surety bond in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs are forfeited to the State.
Concerned Manager, Punjab Na&onal Bank is directed to send the
amount of Rs.10 lakhs to this court as per bank guarantee
furnished by the concerned bank on 18.06.2016. Bail bonds and
surety bonds of the accused are also cancelled and forfeited to the
State."
5. Consequently, the Addi#onal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, dismissed the
applica#on.
6. Once the trial Court had forfeited the bond amount, there was a statutory
remedy against that which the pe##oner did not avail at that #me. As such, the present
pe##on is dismissed; however, liberty is reserved to the pe##oner to challenge the
order dated 28.10.2016 vide which amount was forfeited, if he has not already
challenged it, subject to the condi#on that he shall explain the reasons for the delay and
shall file an applica#on for extension of #me to condone the delay by giving reasons in
detail supported by documentary evidence.
7. It shall be permissible for the pe##oner to raise the ques#on of proper
hearing/inadequate opportunity.
8. It is clarified that if such an appeal is filed against the forfeiture order, then it
shall be considered on its own merit without being influenced by any observa#ons made
by this Court.
9. Pe##on dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applica#ons, if any, also stand
disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
06.03.2024
Jyo# Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:032744
2 of 2
