Gurjant Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Sr. No. 134 Date of Decision:14.01.2025 Gurjant Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

SANJAY VASHISTH , J.(ORAL) 1.

By way of present petition filed under Section 528 Cr.P.C., petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 06.11.2024 (annexed as Annexure P-3), vide which bail order of the petitioner has been cancelled and his personal bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State, resulting into the issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest in case FIR No. 360, dated 24.09.2021, under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station City Dabwali, District Sirsa (Haryana).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the main case under the NDPS Act, petitioner alongwith four co-accused was found in possession of 27.30 grams of heroin (chhitha) without any permit or licence on the motorcycle and subsequently, he was granted bail vide order dated 02.11.2021. On 06.01.2024 he could not appear to join the proceedings and his bail was cancelled. Reason of non-appearance is that niece of the petitioner being unwell was under medical treatment and due to the

constrained circumstance, he could not go to the concerned Court. Thereupon, on coming to know of the cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants, petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application before the trial Court, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-4).

3.

Broad arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that had he been absent with some mala fide reasons, he would not have returned to Court within a short span, for moving the application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel further contends that still, if one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to appear and then to grant him bail, subject to payment of some cost, he would undertake that in all the future proceedings of the present case, will never be absent from the Court except on obtaining prior permission by the Court and will fully cooperate during the Court proceedings.

4.

Notice of motion.

5.

On asking of the Court, Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondentState. 6.

A copy of the complete paper book has been supplied to him by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7.

Learned State counsel opposes the request of the petitioner, and submits that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he is involved in serious offence under the NDPS Act and otherwise also, he has misused the concession of bail granted by the trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at his behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioner would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial.

8.

Be that as it may, 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 litigations, 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. 9.

After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusing the relevant material available on record, especially looking at the fact that recovery in the present case is only 27.30 grams of Heroin (chhitha) and considering this aspect probably, he was granted bail by the court below. It also cannot be left unnoticed that within two months of the absence from the Court, petitioner has again shown inclination to submit himself to the court by way of moving an anticipatory bail application before the trial Court. 10.

Therefore, in the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that if petitioner is given one chance to appear before the trial Court, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority Sirsa, purpose of securing his presence would be served and lot of exercise, time and energy can be saved. 11.

Therefore, it is directed that if petitioner on his own appears before the learned trial Court on or before 30.01.2025, he would be released on bail subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner would submit specific undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of his conduct.

12.

In view of above, the present petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that the bail order would be subject to the deposit of an amount of

Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Sirsa. 13.

Needless to mention here that on compliance of all the conditions mentioned hereinabove, impugned order dated 06.11.2024, (Annexure P-3) would become inoperative qua the petitioner. ( SANJAY VASHISTH ) JUDGE 14.01.2025 dinesh Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No