Punjab-Haryana High Court

Somesh Verma Alias Somesh Ramkaran ... vs State Of Punjab on 27 March, 2025

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042081




CRM-M--16816-2025                                                            1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

144                                                CRM-M-16816-2025
                                                  Date of decision: 27.03.202
                                                                         .2025
Somesh Verma @ Somesh Ramkaran Verma
                                                            ....Petitioner
                                         V/s
State of Punjab and another
                                                            ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:     Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.
                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

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

of 2023 seeking setting-aside setting aside of the order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexur (Annexure P--10)

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide which the bail

granted to the petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of his

bail bonds and surety bonds to the State and petitioner was ordered to be

summoned through non-bailable bailable warrants of arrest in complaint titled as

"Kotak Kotak Mahinder Bank Limited vs. One Source Logistics Private Limited an

another" bearing COMA-837 of 2020.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the

respondent respondent-Bank had instituted five complaints under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner and his company namely

M/s One Source Logistics Private Limited. The subject matter of the instant

petition is the complaint No.837 of 2020 titled as ""Kotak Mahinder Bank

Limited vs. One Source Logistics Private Limited an and another"" wherein the

petitioner had caused appearance on 23.12.2024 and was ordered to be

released on bail on furnishing the bail bonds and surety bonds. Learned

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042081

counsel has further iterated that, since then, the petitioner was regularly

appearing before the Court below and was diligently attending all the

hearings. Learned counsel has submitted that on 18.02.2025,, when the

matter was listed before the Court below, the District Bar Association,

Ludhiana, observed a "No work day" as a mark of respect following the

demise of a Senior Advocate and as a result thereof, both the advocates and

the clients were restricted from attending the Court proceedings. Learned

counsel sel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being

unintentional and owing solely to the circumstances beyond his control control,, the

learned Court below, without considering the inadvertence, erroneously

cancelled the bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. Consequently,

warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner vide impugned order i.e.

18.02.2025. Learned counsel has urged that the non 18.02.2025. non-appearance appearance of the

petitioner before the Court below was neither deliberate nor intentional but b

purely on account of resolution passed by the District Bar Association,

Ludhiana for observing "No work day". Learned counsel asserts that the

petitioner has no intention to evade the proceedings and undertakes to be

present before the Court below on all all future dates of hearing without fail.

According to learned counsel, the issuance of non non-bailable bailable warrants was

harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial

discretion, particularly when the petitioner's absence was purely in inadvertent.

advertent.

Learned counsel has further contended that the procedure adopted by the

learned Court below in directly issuing the non non-bailable bailable warrants against the

petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled principles of

criminal jurisprudence.

jurisprudence. It is well established position of law, as reiterated by

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042081

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the Courts are required to adhere to due

process while ensuring the presence of the accused. It has been submitted by

the learned counsel that in the instant case, the learned trial Court has failed

to issue any notice to the petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non-

non

bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and

contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned

counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to

enter appearance before the Court below as also join the proceedings in

accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the Sessions Court on

each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance

with law for an a expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Keeping in view the nature of the matter especially the factum

of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint filed under Section

8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it

appropriate to call upon the respondents at this stage.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused

the available record.

5. At this juncture, it would be aapposite pposite 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 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

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042081

and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal focal interests of justice justice-to to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securin securing g 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 detention should be close to ours, the function unction of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearan disappearance ce 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 incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable reasonable 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 criminal direction. Public justice is central tto o 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 other resources should be innovated, andd 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 tricks on the court or commun community.

ity. 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 constitution.

constitution."

5.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme upreme 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

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042081

to the jurisdiction and the judgm judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.

end."

5.2. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as

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

"21. In bail applications, gen generally, erally, 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 must be considered a punishment, unless it 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 convicted persons pers 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 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 ex extraordinary traordinary circumstances."

6. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner, after the grant

of bail was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on

18.02.2025, .2025, the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court

below on account of the resolution passed by the District Bar Association,

Ludhiana.. However, the learned trial Court, straight away proceeded to

issue non--bailable bailable warrants against the petitioner. In the considered opinion

of this Court, this amounts to an unjustifiable unjustifiable restriction on the procedural

rights of the petitioner in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides,

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042081

or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his behalf. The issuance

of non-bailable bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanica mechanicall manner. It

must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that

reflect the necessity of such a stringent course.

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 himself 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 being no

tangible material brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner

to interfere with the prosecution 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 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-10)) passed

by the learned Court below is set-aside set aside subject to the petitioner appearing

before the trial/concerned Court on 01.04.2025 i.e. the next date of hearing

fixed in the said Court & shall furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall

continue to appear appear before the trial/concerned Court on each and every date

of hearing. Apart from the aforesaid condition(s), the petitioner shall also

surrender his passport, if any, before the trial/concerned Court. It is clarified

that the trial/concerned Court shall shall be at liberty to impose such other

condition(s) upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:042081

(ii) The petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.10,000/ Rs.10,000/- with the Punjab

and Haryana High Court Employees Welfar Welfaree 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 dismi dismissed ssed without

any further reference to the Bench.

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

(SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE

March 27, 27 2025 Ajay

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No