[ad_1]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 16 April, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050070
CRM-M--20514-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
117 CRM-M-20514-2025
.2025
Date of decision: 16.04.202
Jaskaran Singh
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana and another
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS
seeking quashing of the order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P
P-6)
6) passed by
learned Judicial
udicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram vide which the bail granted
to the petitioner stands cancelled and the petitioner was ordered to be
summoned through warrants of arrest in a complaint case titled as “Sushil
Sushil
Handa vs. Safe Store Mart Pvt Ltd”
Ltd bearing CIS No:NACT/34878/2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a false case
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Instruments Act has been filed against
the petitioner in which he is likely to be acquitted. According to learned
counsel, the petitioner was granted bail by the Court below in the said case
vide order dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P
P-2) and was diligently attending all
the hearings before the Court below. Learned counsel has further iterated
that the petitioner has been suffering from abnormal mild diffuse
encephalopathy since the year 2021 i.e. a condition affecting the cognitive
and physical abilities of the petitioner
petitione which is supported by the medical
reports (ccopy
opy whereof has been appended as Annexures P
P-3 to P–5).
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 00:43:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050070
CRM-M–20514-2025 2
Learned counsel has further submitted that due to the medical condition of
the petitioner,
petitioner he was unable
able to appear before the Court below on
11.10.2024 and could not even inform his counsel, which led to the
cancellation of his bail and issuance of warrants of arrest vide the impugned
order. Furthermore, the proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. have also
been initiated against the petitioner (Copy wher
whereof
eof of has been annexed as
Annexure P-7).
P 7). Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of
the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to the circumstances
beyond his control, the learned Court below, without considering the
inadvertence, erroneously cancelled the bail bonds and surety bonds of the
petitioner. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the
petitioner vide impugned order i.e. 11.10.2024. Learned counsel has urged
that the non-appearance
non appearance of the petitioner before tthe
he Court below was neither
deliberate nor intentional but purely on account of his health condition.
Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention to evade the
proceedings and undertakes to be present before the Court below on all
future dates of hearing without fail. According to learned counsel, the
issuance of non-bailable
non bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary
to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the
petitioner’s absence was purely inadvertent. L
Learned
earned counsel has further
contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Court below in directly
issuing the non-bailable
non bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first
instance is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is
well established position of law, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
that the Courts are required to adhere to due process while ensuring the
2 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 00:43:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050070
CRM-M–20514-2025 3
presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in
the instant case, the learned
learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the
petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non
non-bailable
bailable warrants and
hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural
safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned cou
counsel
nsel has further iterated that
the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the Court
below as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner
shall appear before the Sessions Court on each and every date of hearing and
a
also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious
culmination of the trial.
3. Keeping in view the nature of the matter especially the factum
of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint filed under Section
138 of the Negotiable
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it
appropriate to call upon the respondents at this stage.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused
the available record.
5. At this juncture, it would be apposite to rrefer
efer herein to a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu
and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR
1978 SUPREME COURT 429,
429 relevant whereof reads as under:
“10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of
liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law
authorising it is reasonable, even
even-handed
handed and geared to the goals of
community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed,, the
considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional
proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care
and predicates that deprivation of fre
freedom- by refusal of bail is not for3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 00:43:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050070CRM-M–20514-2025 4
punitive purpose but for the bi-focal
focal interests of justice
justice-to
to the individual
involved and society affected.
11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of
reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail
applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance
to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public
justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours,
the function
ction of bail is limited, ‘community roots’ of the, applicant are
stressed and, after the Vera Foundation’s Manhattan Bail Project,
monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in
keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can
arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the
deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub
sub-jails,
jails, that the
unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration
makes refusal of bail unreasonable
asonable and a Policy favouring release justly
sensible.
12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of
liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an
anti-criminal
criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of
bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should
be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through
community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources
should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with
evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially
sanctioned ‘free enterprise,’ should be provided against. No seeker of
justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or communit
community.
y. Thus,
conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect.
Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the
judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.
constitution.”
5.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme
reme Court in a judgment titled as
Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as
under:-
“Where
Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the
granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and
circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or
imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission4 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 00:43:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050070CRM-M–20514-2025 5
to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is
whether a recognizance or bond wo
would effect that end.”
5.2. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as
Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under:
“21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the
earliest times that the object of bbail
ail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of
bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be
considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an
accused
cused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more
than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after
conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried
and duly found guilty.
22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship.
From time to time, necessity demands that some un
un-convicted
convicted persons
should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attenda
attendance
nce at the
trial but in such cases, “necessity
necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it
would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the
Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter,
upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he
should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper
with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary
circumstances.”
6. A perusal of the record reveals tthat
hat the petitioner, after the grant
of bail, was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on
11.10.202 , the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court
11.10.2024,
below on account of his ill health. However, the learned trial Court, stra
straight
ight
away proceeded to issue non-bailable
non bailable warrants against the petitioner. In the
considered opinion of this Court, this amounts to an unjustifiable restriction
on the procedural rights of the petitioner in the absence of any misconduct,
lack of bona fides,
fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his
5 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 00:43:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050070
CRM-M–20514-2025 6
behalf. The issuance of non-bailable
non bailable warrants must not be exercised in a
mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording
cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course.
7. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of
the case; especially the factum of the prime object of cancellation of bail and
forfeiture of bail bonds being securing the presence of the accused, the
petitioner-accused
ed having come forward himself to face trial, willingness
shown by the petitioner-accused
petitioner accused to appear before the trial Court on each and
every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that he
shall cooperate for an expeditious culmination of the trial & there being no
tangible material brought forward to indicate the likelihood of the petitioner
to interfere with the prosecution evidence; this Court is the considered
opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed.
8. It is, thus,
us, directed as follows:
(i) The impugned orderr dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P
P-6)) passedby the learned Court below is set-aside
set aside subject to the petitioner appearingbefore the trial/concerned Court on 09.06.2025 i.e. the next date of hearing
fixed in the said
said Court & shall furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shallcontinue to appear before the trial/concerned Court on each and every date
of hearing. Apart from the aforesaid condition(s), the petitioner shall also
surrender his passport, if any, before the trial/concerned Court. It is clarified
that the trial/concerned Court shall be at liberty to impose such other
condition(s) upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
6 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 00:43:15 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050070
CRM-M–20514-2025 7
(ii) The petitioner shall deposit
it costs of Rs.10,000/
Rs.10,000/- with the Punjab
and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association. It is clarified that
payment of the aforesaid costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before
the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In abs
absence
ence of deposit
of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without
any further reference to the Bench.
(iii) Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE
April 16,, 2025
202
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 17-04-2025 00:43:15 :::
[ad_2]
Source link