Lovepreet Singh v. State Of Punjab

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision-21.04.2022 Lovepreet Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ

Present:

Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

*** MANOJ BAJAJ, J. (Oral) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial Court in case FIR No.77 dated 07.10.2019, registered under Sections 21, 29 and 27 (A) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, whereby his bail was cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 13.01.2021, petitioner was granted interim bail and thereafter, he kept on appearing regularly before the trial Court. However, on 09.12.2021, he did not appear before the trial Court, as he noted down the wrong date, consequently, the trial Court proceeded to cancel his bail and forfeited the

-2bail bonds vide impugned order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-3). He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to participate in the trial proceedings and the next date of hearing before the trial Court is now fixed for 04.05.2022. He prays for quashing the impugned order. Notice of motion.

At this stage, Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Sr. DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and states that the advance copy of the petition has already been received by him. He opposes the prayer and submits that since the petitioner failed to appear on the date of hearing, therefore, the Court is justified in cancelling his bail. However, it is not disputed by him that the case is coming up before the trial Court for hearing on 04.05.2022.

A perusal of the order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) reflects that the trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order of cancellation of bail for the solitary absence of petitioner, who was on bail since 13.01.2021. At times, the accused or his counsel can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and every such absence cannot be necessarily construed as a deliberate and willful absence. The explanation offered by petitioner for non appearance before the trial Court appears to be justified and therefore, the same is accepted. Consequently, the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) is set aside subject to appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court on or before the date fixed i.e.04.05.2022 and he is allowed to remain on the same bail bonds and surety bonds. In the event of non-compliance of this

-3order, the order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure P-3) would remain intact. Disposed off.

(MANOJ BAJAJ) JUDGE 21.04.2022 geeta Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes No Whether Reportable :

Yes No