Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veena Alias Veena Rani vs State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2025
138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2206-2025
DECIDED ON: 16.01.2025
VEENA ALIAS VEENA DEVI .....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB .....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner, for quashing of
the order dated 05.10.2024 (Annexure P-4), whereby the non-bailable
warrants were issued against him, in a case bearing FIR No.98, dated
02.06.2021, under Section(s) 392, 342, 170, 148, 149, 412, 120-B, 450, 452,
395 and 397 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station
Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier, vide order dated
05.01.2023, passed in CRM-M-17343-2022 (Annexure P-1), petitioner was
granted regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and at the time of
granting of regular bail, petitioner had been appearing before the Court, on
each and every date. It is once on 05.10.2024 that on account of being absent
without intimation, her bail was cancelled, and bail bonds were forfeited.
Resultantly, non-bailaible warrants were also issued.
authenticity of this order/judgment
3. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is a
poor household lady and is a resident of the State of Himachal Pradesh, and
in case, one opportunity is granted for releasing her on bail, she undertakes
that she would never be absent in future, without there being prior
permission from the Court. Further prays that the petitioner be released on
bail on the same bail bonds/surety bonds, if not forfeited already by the time
of surrendering of the petitioner before the Court.
4. On advance notice, Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, puts
an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that
petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, she is involved in serious
offence against society. Otherwise also, she has misused the concession of
bail granted by the trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that
looking at her behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioner would
not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial.
5. In number of cases, this Court has considered similar plea of
appearance, expressed at the instance of the accused, who failed to appear
before the Court at appropriate time, and observed that paramount
consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and
every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts
are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because
of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for
expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused
persons to get hold of them.
authenticity of this order/judgment
6. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and
examined the relevant material available on record. The petitioner has remiss
in appearing before the Court only on one date i.e. on 05.10.2024, when
impugned order cancelling the bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants
has been passed against her. It also cannot be left unnoticed that within two
months of the absence from the Court, and on coming to know about passing
of the impugned order, the petitioner has moved the present petition,
showing her inclination to submit herself before the trial Court.
7. In totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner
can be given one chance to appear before the trial Court. Accordingly, the
plea of the petitioner is accepted and she is directed to be released on bail, in
the eventuality of surrendering of her before the trial Court on or before
07.02.2025. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the trial Court, in case the bail bonds have already been
forfeited. Besides, petitioner would also submit specific
undertaking/affidavit that she will keep appearing during the proceedings of
the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of her
conduct.
8. Present petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
16.01.2025 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
