Mukesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-27599-2016 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (102) CRM-M-27599-2016 Date of Decision:-11.08.2016 Mukesh Kumar .....Petitioner V/S State of Punjab .......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI Present : Mr. R.S. Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

A.B. Chaudhari, J. (Oral):- Heard learned counsel for the rival parties in the pending case arising out of FIR No.40 dated 03.03.2016 registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station- Division No.7, Jalandhar, District Police Commissionerate, Jalandhar. The petitioner was on bail during trial. However, on the appointed date i.e.11.07.2016, he was absent though repeatedly called by the Court for facing trial. Due to his absence the concession of bail that was given to him was cancelled. Bail bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants have been issued returnable on 24.08.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a confusion about the correct date for appearance and, therefore, he did not appear. Be that as it may, since petitioner was already on bail and this default appears to be Pankaj Kakkar 2016.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-27599-2016 [2] first one, I am inclined to stay the non-bailable warrants and restore the bail to which the petitioner was admitted, since the counsel for the petitioner has given an undertaking that the petitioner would not make any default in appearance in future, and would appear on all the dates with promptitude. In that view of the matter order dated 11.07.2016 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner will continue to be on bail during trial. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court with promptitude on all the dates.

August 11, 2016 (A.B. Chaudhari) Pankaj Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Pankaj Kakkar 2016.08.19 15:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document