Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sajid Ali vs State Of Haryana And Another on 2 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
120
Date of decision: 02.01.2025
CRM-M-65505-2024
SAJID ALI ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .......Respondents
CRM-M-65506-2024
SAJID ALI ......Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Neelam Choudhary, Advocate
for respondent No.2-Complainant.
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
Since identical issues are involved in both these writ petitions, the
same are being disposed of by a common order.
2. Reference to facts and brief is, however, being made from CRM-
M-65505-2024 titled as "Sajid Ali versus State of Haryana and another".
3. Challenge in the above petition is to the order dated 07.03.2024
(Annexure P-3) vide which the bail of the petitioner had been cancelled and the
bail bonds/surety bonds were ordered to be forfeited to the State and non-
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000118
bailable warrants for production of the petitioner had been issued in Criminal
Appeal No. 85 of 2021 instituted on 01.10.2021 against the judgment/order of
conviction/sentence dated 07/08.09.2021 passed in Criminal Complaint No.
7234 of 2018 titled as "Sanjiv Kumar versus Sajid Ali" under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that
the petitioner had preferred the aforesaid appeal against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence which came up for hearing on 01.10.2021
before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. The sentence of the petitioner
was ordered to be suspended subject to a pre-deposit of 20% of the
compensation awarded by the trial Court. The said deposit to the tune of Rs. 7
lakhs was made by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an
application for exemption from appearance on 25.01.2023 which was declined
and his bail was cancelled. The bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited.
Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court in CRM-M-43969-
2023 which was allowed directing the petitioner to appear before the Appellate
Court on 04.09.2023. He submits that during the pendency of the said appeal
and on account of certain intervening circumstances as also the confusion that
had erupted on account of alteration in the dates, the petitioner could not appear
on the date whereby the bail was cancelled yet again and warrants issued vide
order dated 07.03.2024. The petitioner approached the Sessions Courts again
for grant of bail which was dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2024. Against the
same, the petitioner approached this Court by making a specific averment that
he had arranged an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs and he is ready to deposit the same
in Court which was not accepted by the complainant.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:000118
5. The matter came up before this Court on 26.12.2024 when the
aforesaid contention of the petitioner was noticed alongwith the submission that
the balance amount shall also be deposited by the petitioner and that he shall
produce the receipt in respect thereof.
6. The case was accordingly adjourned to 30.12.2024. On the said
date of hearing, statement of the petitioner was recorded about a deposit of
Rs. 15 lakhs (Rs. 7.5 lakhs in each case) in the Court of Duty Magistrate,
Karnal and sought time to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 41 lakhs on or
before 02.01.2025.
7. Today on the resumed hearing, it has been stated by the Counsel
for the petitioner that the balance amount of Rs. 41 lakhs also stands deposited
with the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karnal vide Treasury Challans dated
01.01.2025 and 02.01.2025.
8. Counsel for the respondents as well as the complainant-respondent
No.2 do not dispute the same.
9. In view of the said circumstances, the present petitions are
allowed, the order dated 07.03.2024 cancelling the bail and forfeiting the surety
of the petitioner are set aside.
10. Needless to mention that the concerned Court would be within its
powers to take appropriate decision on the amount which already stands
deposited by the petitioner and be admitted to bail on the same surety bonds.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JANUARY 02, 2025 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
