Hanuman Singh v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Sr. No.235 Date of Decision: 02.04.2026 HANUMAN SINGH

...Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present:- Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana.

***** MANDEEP PANNU, J. (Oral) 1.

The present petition is the first petition under Section 483 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 618 dated 14.12.2025, registered under Section 209 of the BNS (old Section 174-A IPC) at Police Station City Bhiwani, District Bhiwani.

2.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender in a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani, on account of his nonappearance despite issuance of summons. Consequently, proclamation proceedings were initiated and he was declared a proclaimed person vide order dated 05.09.2025, pursuant to which the present FIR under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 BNS) came to be registered. It is further

submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge of the said proceedings and immediately upon gaining knowledge, he voluntarily appeared and surrendered before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani on 24.02.2026 and has since been in judicial custody. It is argued that the allegations are purely technical in nature arising out of non-appearance and no substantive offence involving moral turpitude or violence is made out. 3.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present bail application and has submitted that the petitioner had been declared a proclaimed offender by the competent court and had failed to join the proceedings despite due process. It is argued that in view of his previous conduct, there is every likelihood that in case he is released on bail, he may again abscond and evade the process of law. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. It is not disputed that the petitioner has already surrendered before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani and is presently in judicial custody for the last about one month and eight days. The offence alleged against the petitioner arises out of his nonappearance in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and is, thus, procedural in nature. The petitioner has now submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Court and has expressed his willingness to face the trial and abide by all the conditions imposed by the Court. The apprehension of the State that the petitioner may abscond can be adequately addressed by imposing appropriate and stringent conditions.

5.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered before the Court, the nature of allegations, the period of custody, and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody. 6.

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. The petitioner shall abide by all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial Court, and stricter conditions may also be imposed to ensure his presence during trial proceedings. The petitioner shall not misuse the concession of bail and shall appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing unless exempted.

(MANDEEP PANNU) 02.04.2026 JUDGE Anu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No