Vijay Kumar And Another v. State Of Punjab

-
-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH
 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.01.2023  

 

....Petitioners

Versus

  

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present :

Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners.





 ! ! "# HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral) CRM-538-2023 The instant application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for placing on record Annexure P-7.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Annexure P-7 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P-5) in FIR No.161 dated 11.07.2018 (Annexure P-1) registered under Sections 380 read with Section 34 of IPC, 1860 at Police Station Daresi, District Ludhiana, vide which the bail granted to the petitioners has been cancelled and nonbailable warrants were ordered to be issued against them, as they could not appear before the trial Court on the date fixed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2019

-$- passed in CRM-M-45988 of 2018, and petitioner No.2 was granted regular bail vide order dated 17.09.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana. He further submits that after getting the concession of bail, the present petitioners were regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, in the interregnum, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing of the cases were commenced through video-conferencing and the appearance of the petitioners was also exempted. Ultimately, when the Courts started functioning properly, the case was fixed for hearing on 25.02.2022 but the petitioners could not appear before the trial Court and it was adjourned for 11.04.2022. However, on 11.04.

2022, due to communication gap between the petitioners and their counsel, they missed the date, resulting in cancellation of their bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants against them by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel submits that there was no intention on the part of petitioners to delay the proceedings and their absence before the trial court was neither intentional nor deliberate but for the aforesaid reason. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to surrender before the trial Court and join the proceedings, if they be granted one opportunity to do so. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners undertakes to appear on each and every date before the trial court and to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer of the petitioners raised in the instant petition by stating that they have jumped the bail and have not followed the conditions of bail, accordingly the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and prays for dismissal of this petition. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners

-%- as well as learned counsel for the respondent/State and have also perused the paper book as well as the impugned order.

A perusal of order dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure P-5) reflects that the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order on account of absence of petitioners on 11.04.2022. It is observed that 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. &'()  *+,"

+- , + ,+
./0$/
.!'',+
 !  1,+'
 

           !  2&1,  3)'+,-  ') ,2&  ' 1  ''

,!

)#',*,+' +,4
   





       







 



    !

"

  #$ 

 

 





& 

 '  "

& 

(( )(* %%% +,-







 

   /   0 

. 

 -,1)2*  -,3) *

%

     

    

 -,1)2*  -,3) *

%

 

.



  

4

 --56

%

-5-

 



"    

 



 



     --56

%

( '





 

     --56

% 6 



  

 

 





    

 



  --56

% 



 

   

 

   7 

     !!"#$%# & 

0     



 

 

 





 



    9

  





  

 

  

  &  





  

 

 

 





  

 

 

 8



  ' !!(#$%

(&







0 8 



   

  -,3) * % : %

-6- 

 7



  

  /  









 



  

 





) 

   *  

     --5

%;



 

!   

   

  

6      





   #$

 

    

  

 



 

  

 

         

 



  .



 



     







 

      6 

  

  





   

(3

(+  







   

 

 

  

 

 



' 



  7  ! 

  /

  $

!







- x - x -"

-7- In the present case also, the bail of the petitioners was cancelled as they did not appear on the date fixed i.e. 11.04.2022, before the trial Court on account of communication gap between them and their counsel appearing before the trial Court.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were regularly appearing before the trial Court except on one date i.e. 11.04.2022 when they absented on account of communication gap between them and their counsel and also considering their submissions that there was no intention on their part to remain absent, this Court is inclined to afford one opportunity to the petitioners to mend their ways. Moreover, joining of proceedings by the petitioners, would ensure finalization of proceedings. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to surrender before the trial Court on or before 19.01.

2023 by furnishing an undertaking before the trial Court that they will attend the Court proceedings regularly and will not leave the country without prior permission of the Court and abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial Court. In case, the petitioners surrenders before the trial Court on or before 19.01.2023, then they be released by the trial Court upon their furnishing adequate surety bonds/bail bonds to its satisfaction subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (each) to be deposited in the concerned District Legal Services Authority.

Disposed of in the above-said terms.

13.01.2023 (HARSH BUNGER) Amandeep JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No