Kanwar Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 776 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kanwar Pal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 January, 2025

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002861




CRM-M--501-2025                                                              1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

125                                             CRM-M-501-2025
                                                Date of decision: 13.01.2025

Kanwar Pal Singh                                            ....Petitioner

                                         V/s

State of Punjab                                             ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present:     Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner.
             Mr. Yuvraj Singh, AAG Punjab.
                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS

of 2023 seeking for quashing of the order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) P

vide which the bail order (earlier extended in favour of the petitioner) has

been cancelled on account of his non-appear non appearance ance & accordingly the bail

bonds/surety bonds stands forfeited.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner

had been earlier granted the concession of regular bail on 28.11.2018 and

was regularly appearing before the trial Court Court.. Learned counsel has

submitted that the petitioner was unable to appear before the trial Court on

04.11.2024 as also on 11.12.2024 as the clerk of his trial counsel had

wrongly informed him of the next date of hearing in the trial. Learned

counsel has iterated i that the non-appearance appearance of the petitioner before the trial

Court was unintentional and bona fide,, the petitioner is willing to enter

appearance before the trial Court as also join proceedings in accordance with

law,, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002861

of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a

expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Yuvraj Singh, AAG Punjab Punjab, who is present in Court,

accepts notice on behalf of the official respondent respondent-State of Punjab. He has

opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the

petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of

bail earlier extended extended to him by not appearing before the trial Court & no

plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not

appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid dates.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have

perused rused the available record.

6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu

and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR

1978 SUPREME COURT 429, 429 relevant whereof reads as under:

"10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi bi-focal focal interests of justice-to to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, ess, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical dete detention ntion should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project,

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002861

monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody stody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub sub-jails, jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable in incarceration carceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction.

rection. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or oth other er resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence idence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constit constitution."

6.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as

Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as

under:-

"Where Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgm judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.

end."

6.2. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as

Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty mu must st be considered a punishment, unless it

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002861

can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un un-convicted persons ersons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any ny person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."

7. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of

the case; especially the factum of the prime object of cancellation of bail and

forfeiture of bail bonds being securing the presence of the accused, the

petitioner-accused accused having come forward hhimself imself to face trial, willingness

shown by the petitioner-accused petitioner accused to appear before the trial Court on each and

every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that he

shall cooperate for an expeditious culmination of the trial & there be being ing no

tangible material brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner

to interfere with the prosecution evidence; this Court is the considered

opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed.

8. It is, thus, directed as follows:

(i) The impugned order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P P-1)

1) passed

by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, udge, Amritsar is set-aside subject to the

petitioner appearing before the trial/concerned Court on or before

14.02.2025 i.e. the next date of hearing fixed in the said Court & shall

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002861

furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the

trial/concerned Court on each and every date of hearing. It is clarified that

the trial/concerned Court shall be at liberty liberty to impose such other condition(s)

upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.20,000/ Rs.20,000/- with the Punjab

and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Associati Association.. It is clarified that

payment of the aforesaid costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before

the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit

of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without with

any further reference to the Bench.

(iii) Pending application(s),, if any, stands disposed of.

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE January 13, 13 2025 Ajay

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5