Shezad Alias Mohd Sahzad v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No.36714 of 2025 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.36714 of 2025 Date of decision : 16.07.2025 Shezad @ Mohd Sahzad .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Sanyam Khetarpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of impugned order dated 13.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in pending trial of case bearing FIR No.517, dated 11.08.2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 379-B, 427 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 8, Faridabad, Haryana vide which bail of the petitioner has been cancelled, bail bonds are forfeited to the State and warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner along with all consequential proceedings therefrom. 2.

Precise submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was prosecuted in a case bearing FIR No.517, dated 11.08.2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 379-B, 427 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 8, Faridabad, Haryana. He has submitted that after registration of the FIR, the petitioner was granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2021 passed in CRM-M-15537-2021. He has submitted that thereafter the

the dates, on which applications for exemption of personal appearance were filed by the petitioner. He has submitted that on 13.01.2025, the petitioner filed an application for exemption from personal appearance as he was suffering from viral fever. He has submitted that due to nonappearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court on the date fixed, i.e. 13.01.2025, his bail order was cancelled and bail bonds were forfeited to the State. He has submitted that warrants of arrest were also issued against the petitioner. He has submitted that absence of the petitioner was bona fide and not intentional. He has further 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 bail order of the petitioner was rightly cancelled by the learned trial Court and warrants of arrest were issued against him, as he 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 bearing FIR No.517, dated 11.08.2019, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 379-B, 427 of IPC, 1860, registered at Police Station Sector 8, Faridabad, Haryana, in which bail order was cancelled and bail bonds were forfeited to the State. Warrants of arrest were also issued against the petitioner due to his non appearance before the learned trial Court. Applications seeking exemption from personal appearance were always filed by the petitioner.

viral fever and filed application for exemption from personal appearance, but the same was declined by the learned trial Court and thus, due to his non appearance, bail order was cancelled, bail bonds were forfeited to the State and warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner. 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 13.01.2025 is hereby set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.15,000/- to be deposited with the Spinal Rehab Centre, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, 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. The petitioner 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 13.01.2025 would come in force and the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 16.07.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No