Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arvind vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 24 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010950
126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4075-2025
Date of decision: 24.01.2025
Arvind ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of order dated 15.01.2025
(Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani,
whereby, bail order and bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner have been
cancelled.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends that
the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
01 year and directed to pay a compensation of Rs.6 lakh to the complainant
within one month along with 10 % interest per annum. Thereafter, the petitioner
moved an application for suspension of sentence and he was admitted to bail to
file an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 15.10.2024 and order of
sentence dated 16.10.2024 for 30 days. Further, the petitioner has filed the
appeal along with an application for suspension of sentence and the same was
allowed vide order dated 12.11.2024 with a direction to make payment of 20%
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010950
of the compensation amount to the complainant. In terms of order dated
12.11.2024, the petitioner deposited a cheque bearing No. 000037 dated
18.12.2024 amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- i.e. 20% of the compensation amount,
in favour of the complainant but due to some financial issues in his family, he
could not arrange the sufficient funds and cheque bearing No.000037 dated
18.12.2024 was dishonoured and to comply the order dated 12.11.2024
(Annexure P-2), the petitioner tried to contact his counsel but no
communication was made. On 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-4), none has appeared
on behalf of the petitioner, on account of which, his bail bonds/surety bonds
were cancelled and forfeited to the State and non-bailable warrants against the
petitioner were issued for 28.01.2025.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced the
demand draft bearing No.695471 dated 23.01.2025 in favour of respondent
No.2 amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- i.e. 20 % of the compensation amount as
provided under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act (copy of the
same is placed on record). He further undertakes to deposit the same before the
learned Appellate Court at the time of his appearance. He further submits that
the non-appearance of the petitioner was not deliberate and intentional and
thus, aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of
instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside
on the ground of unintentional non-appearance of the petitioner.
4. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before
the trial Court on each and every date.
5. Notice of motion.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010950
6. Ms. Geeta Sharma, DAG, Haryana, who is present in Court,
accepts notice for respondent No.1 and submits that the impugned order has
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 and had been appearing
before the trial Court.
7. 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.
8. A perusal of the order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) reflects
that the trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order of cancellation of bail
for the solitary absence of petitioner. 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
wilful absence. The explanation offered for non appearance before the trial
Court is justified and, therefore, the same is accepted.
9. 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 i.e. it must be fair, just and not
suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
10. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010950
case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial
Court on each and every date.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is allowed, without issuing notice to respondent No.2 in order to save
time of the Court and to avoid litigation expenses to be incurred on the part of
respondent No.2 and the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 (Annexure P-4),
vide which the bail bonds and bail order of the petitioner was cancelled and
non-bailable warrants were issued, is hereby set aside.
12. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a
period of two 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 subject to deposit of said demand draft by the petitioner which shall be
handed over to respondent No.2.
13. However, in case, the petitioner fails to surrender before the
learned trial Court within the stipulated time period, the interim protection
granted by this Court, shall be deemed to be vacated.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
24.01.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
