Lakhbir Singh Alias Lakhi v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-5048 of 2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.5048 of 2025 Date of decision : 29.01.2025 Lakhbir Singh @ Lakhi .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of impugned order dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) in FIR No.273, dated 13.11.2016 (Annexure P-1) under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1885, registered at Police Station Jakhal, District Fatehabad along with all consequential proceedings whereby the learned Special Judge, Fask Track under NDPS Act, Fatehabad has cancelled the bail of the petitioner and forfeited the bail bonds and surety bonds and issued arrest warrant against the petitioner. 2.

Precise submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was prosecuted in the case bearing FIR No.273, dated 13.11.2016, for offences under Section 21 of NDPS Act. He has submitted that the present FIR was registered against the petitioner on the allegations made by the prosecution that 19 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner and he could not be arrested on the spot as he ran away. After

Court vide order dated 06.03.2017. He has submitted that after granting of the bail, the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner noted the wrong date i.e. 24.01.2025 instead of 21.01.2025 and due to this miscommunication, he could not appear before the trial Court on the date fixed i.e. 21.01.2025. He has submitted that due to the absence of the petitioner, the learned trial Court had cancelled the bail order of the petitioner and bail bonds were forfeited to the State vide order dated 21.01.2025. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner for 24.02.2025. He has submitted that absence of the petitioner was bona fide and not intentional and he never misuse the concession of bail granted to him. He has submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the learned trial Court and abide by the terms and conditions imposed upon him.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He on the other hand has contended that the warrant of arrest was rightly issued against the petitioner and he is liable to be prosecuted in the said case, as he had failed to appear in the Court despite orders. 5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6.

It is apparent that the petitioner was prosecuted in case FIR No.273, dated 13.11.2016, for offences under Section 21 of NDPS Act in which warrants of arrest were issued against him due to his absence. The reason for his absence has been given by the petitioner that he noted the

CRM-M-5048 of 2025 -3wrong date i.e. 24.01.2025 instead of 21.01.2025. As the petitioner is keen to join the proceedings, so keeping in view the abovesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be deposited with the Sadhna Society for the Mentally Handicapped, Sector 13, Chandigarh by the petitioner within one week from today. In case, the petitioner appears and surrenders before the Court concerned within a period of 10 days from today and files an application for bail alongwith receipt of abovesaid costs, the Court concerned is directed to admit him to bail subject to its satisfaction and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. He will have protection from arrest for a period of 10 days from today.

7.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the abovesaid direction, he will have no benefit of abovesaid protection granted by this Court and order under challenge dated 21.01.2025 would come in force and the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 29.01.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No