Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajvir Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 December, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.103+255 CRM-M-53971-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 19.12.2024
Rajvir Singh and another ..... Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. J.S. Sekhon, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
CRM-50599-2024
This application has been filed for placing on record the
unconditional apology (Annexure R2/1) on behalf of respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner has
business in Azerbaijan and Georgia and his wife is resident of Canada due to
which, he went abroad. He was not aware of the conditions imposed upon
him, which is his fault and is admitted by him and the petitioner prays that
unconditional apology may be accepted and taken on record before this
Court. He further submits that petitioner never intended to evade the process
of law and as soon as, the factum of breach of condition came to his
knowledge, he came back to India and furnished his bail bonds before the
learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
The application is allowed as prayed for and Annexure R2/1 is
taken on record subject to all just exceptions.
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:25:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170988
CRM-M-53971-2024
This petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.2 by this Court in
CRM-M-48549-2023 titled as Jagjoin Singh Vs. State of Punjab vide orders
dated 20.05.2024 & 10.07.2024 (Annexures P3 & P4) in case FIR No.49
dated 04.09.2023, under Sections 406 & 420 IPC and Section 24 of the
Emigration Act, registered at Police Station Morinda, District Rupnagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent
No.2, after the grant of anticipatory bail visited a foreign country without
taking prior permission from the trial Court and thereby has violated the
terms and conditions imposed upon him while granting anticipatory bail and
his bail should be cancelled on this account.
Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that a
mistake has been committed by respondent No.2 and that he was unaware
that prior permission is required to be taken from the trial Court. He came
back to India as soon as this fact came to his knowledge, which reflects that
the mistake/violation was without any mala fide intention. There is no
allegation that respondent No.2 ever misused the concession of bail by
tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel has also tendered
unconditional apology on behalf of respondent No.2 (Annexure R/2-1) .
Heard.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case
and in view of the fact that respondent No.2 admits his mistake and that he
has come back to India, as also has tendered an unconditional apology to
show his bona fide conduct, this Court is of the considered view that no
useful purpose would be served by cancelling the anticipatory bail already
granted to respondent No.2. However, considering the fact that he did indeed
violate the terms and conditions of the bail granted to him, respondent No.2
2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 23-12-2024 21:25:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:170988
is hereby directed to deposit a cost of Rs.40,000/- with the Poor Patient
Welfare Fund, PGIMER Chandigarh and Rs.10,000/- which is to be
paid to the petitioner/complainant within a period of three weeks from
today.
The petition stands dismissed in abovesiad terms.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
19.12.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 23-12-2024 21:25:38 :::
[ad_1]
Source link