Saurav Alias Sorav v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.09.2025 SAURAV ALIAS SORAV ...PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Sirat Sapra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shaveta Sanghi, DAG, Haryana.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. (ORAL) FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 26.08.2022 Arya Nagar, 323/324/34/506 IPC and Section Rohtak 307 of IPC and 25 of Arms Act were added later on 1.

Challenging the order dated 19.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide which bail of the petitioner was cancelled, bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State, the petitioner has come up before this court under section 528 read with Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS]. 2.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024. During pendency of the present case, on 19.07.2025, he moved an application before the trial Court seeking exemption from personal appearance, which was rejected. Consequently, his bail was cancelled and the bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State. It is submitted that the petitioner's non-appearance on that day was not intentional. Counsel further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. 3.

Notice served upon the official respondent through State counsel. The nature of order which this Court proposes to pass, there is no necessity of calling any response from the State. 4.

The petitioner was earlier on regular bail vide order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the this Court. An analysis of the submissions and the petition would lead to the following outcome. It remains undisputed that when the petitioner got to know about cancellation of bail, he took legal remedy and came up before this Court. It also remains undisputed that it never happened that police officials caught him or he tried to run away to avoid an appearance in Court,

-2moreover, application for exemption was filed on his behalf. In such a situation, the petitioner has proved their case by a preponderance of probabilities and has prima facie established that his non-appearance was beyond his control. The petitioner within a short span on his own came before this Court, undertaking to attend the trial, and it is not the police who have been able to arrest him.

5.

Let the petitioner attend the trial because the criminal justice system must not hamper and suffer because of the petitioner, however, this Court is conscious of the fact that on the day of cancellation of bail, four prosecution witnesses were also present and due to petitioner's absence, they could not be examined.

6.

The State's counsel submitted that if this Court is granting any concession to the petitioner, it must be subject to some reprimand. The petitioner's counsel declared that if this court imposes reasonable and affordable costs, the petitioner shall deposit the same. 7.

The primary object of the service is to secure the accused's presence at trial. The petitioner approached this court independently, establishing the bonafide at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and also for the reasons mentioned above, the ends of justice would meet petitioner is permitted to surrender. Thus, exercising the inherent powers under section 528 BNSS, it would be appropriate to grant the following limited relief to the petitioner, subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned in this order.

 Given above, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the concerned court on or before 09.10.2025, 11 AM. On or before this date, if the petitioner files bail application(s) after surrender, the concerned trial court shall grant bail to the petitioner, as he was on bail earlier subject to furnishing bail bonds by imposing reasonable conditions deemed appropriate in the background of the accused's conduct. The petitioner is directed to appear on each date before the trial court. This order is subject to the condition that petitioner shall deposit Rs.20,000/- in the account of Pt. B.D. Sharma, UHS Rohtak, Account No.151000000504, IFSC-INDB0000130, Bank Name-IndusInd Bank. Petitioner shall and handover receipt of the Bank in the trial Court at the time of surrender. 9.

There shall be a stay of the petitioner's arrest in the case mentioned till 09.10.2025 by 5.00 P.M. It is clarified that if the petitioner fails to appear before the concerned court within the time limit mentioned in this order, then this order shall be recalled automatically under section 403 read with 528 of BNSS, 2023, without any further reference to this court. 10.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

-311.

A certified copy of this order would not be needed, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the concerned court/ officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

Petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

17.09.2025 (ANOOP CHITKARA) renubala JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No