Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hetram vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 22 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041948
CRM-M-15354-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:041948
134
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15354-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 22.03.2024
Hetram
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. J.P. Jangu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
*******
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
for quashing the impugned order dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by
the learned trial Court, vide which, while cancelling the bail of the petitioner
and forfeiting the bail bonds to the State, he has been summoned through
non-bailable warrants of arrest and the order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-
4), vide which proceedings for declaring him as proclaimed offender have
been initiated as well as all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, inter alia,
contends that that the petitioner was granted the concession of bail and was
regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. Vide orders starting from
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041948
2024:PHHC:041948
17.01.2018 to 04.11.2023, learned trial Court issued notices and summons
and non-bailable warrants of arrest to the petitioner and lastly, the case was
adjourned to 07.11.2023 and on that date, bail of the petitioner was cancelled
and bail bonds were forfeited to the State and non-bailable warrants were
issued. It is further contended that the petitioner is a government servant and
due to official work, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on
07.11.2023 and vide order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-4), the learned trial
Court initiated the proceedings for declaring the petitioner as proclaimed
offender. Aggrieved by the said impugned orders, the petitioner has
approached this Court by way of instant petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the ground that the mandate of
Section 82 Cr.P.C. has not been followed in its letter and spirit by the learned
trial Court. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner relies upon
the judgment passed by this Court in Sonu vs. State of Haryana 2021 (1)
RCR (Cri.) 319 and the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court in
Govindbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 830.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
non-appearance of the petitioner was not deliberate and intentional and thus,
aggrieved by the said orders, he has approached this Court by way of instant
petition. It is contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on
the ground of unintentional non-appearance of the petitioner, as stated above.
5. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041948
2024:PHHC:041948
before the trial Court on each and every date.
6. Notice of motion.
7. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in Court,
accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1-State and submits that the
impugned orders have been passed on the sole ground of the absence of the
petitioner, however, it is not disputed by him that petitioner was already on
bail.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties,
the matter is taken up for final disposal.
9. A perusal of the order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) reflects
that the trial Court proceeded to initiate proceedings for declaring the
petitioner as proclaimed offender. Many a times, the accused can be
prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a
given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate
and willful absence. The explanation offered for non-appearance before the
trial Court is justified and, therefore, the same is accepted.
10. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates
curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance
that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to
maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-
accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such
procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:041948
2024:PHHC:041948
i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or
unreasonableness.
11. The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants is to
secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the
present case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before
the trial Court on each and every date.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 07.11.2023 (Annexure P-3)
and order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) are hereby set aside.
13. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within
a period of four weeks from today and on his doing so, he shall be admitted
to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial Court, along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the District
Legal Services Authority, Gurugram, for wasting precious time of the Court.
[ HARPREET SINGH BRAR ]
22.03.2024 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
