CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 133 Ram Kumar @ Ramu State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. of 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P passed by learned Sessions Judge, B proceedings arising therefrom petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of surety bonds to the State and against the petitioner in FIR No. Sections 17 C, 25, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act District Bhiwani 2. had applied for regular bail before the Court below which after considering the merits of the case 07.11.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that petitioner was regu attended all the hearings when the matter was listed was suffering from certain medical ailments an -16277-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ram Kumar @ Ramu V/s State of Haryana CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS of 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani proceedings arising therefrom vide which the regular bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of surety bonds to the State and accordingly against the petitioner in FIR No.234 dated 17 C, 25, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act District Bhiwani Learned counsel for the petitioner has had applied for regular bail before the Court below which after considering the merits of the case had granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 07.11.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that petitioner was regularly appearing before the said Court attended all the hearings. Learned counsel has submitted that when the matter was listed before the learned Sessions Court, the petitioner was suffering from certain medical ailments an 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16277-2025 Date of decision: 25.03.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS of 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P hiwani as also all the subsequent vide which the regular bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of his bail bonds and accordingly warrants of arrest have been issued dated 04.10.2023 registered under 17 C, 25, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Jui Kalan, Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner had applied for regular bail before the Court below which after considering bail to the petitioner vide order dated 07.11.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that, since then, the larly appearing before the said Court and was diligently . Learned counsel has submitted that on 05.03.2025 before the learned Sessions Court, the petitioner was suffering from certain medical ailments and accordingly instructed his .2025 The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS of 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) as also all the subsequent vide which the regular bail granted to the bail bonds and n issued registered under Jui Kalan, the petitioner had applied for regular bail before the Court below which after considering bail to the petitioner vide order dated since then, the and was diligently on 05.03.2025 before the learned Sessions Court, the petitioner d accordingly instructed his AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- counsel to move an application seeking exemption from personal appearance for the said date. However, due to inadvertence, the requisite medical documents were not annexed with the said application and the learned Court below has rejected the exemption application of the petitioner and proceeded to cancel his bail. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner and an order for forfeiture of his bail and surety bonds was passed. Learned counsel asserts tha petitioner and subsequently issuance of disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the petitioner communicated to the Court. Learned counsel has procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Court in directly issuing the non bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled position of law, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the Courts are required to adhere to due process while ensuring the presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learn case, the learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safe enshrined under the law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the Sessions Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the Sessi -16277-2025 counsel to move an application seeking exemption from personal appearance for the said date. However, due to inadvertence, the requisite medical documents were not annexed with the said application and the learned Court has rejected the exemption application of the petitioner and proceeded to cancel his bail. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner and an order for forfeiture of his bail and surety bonds was passed. Learned counsel asserts that the denial of the exemption application of the petitioner and subsequently issuance of disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the petitioner’s absence was justifie communicated to the Court. Learned counsel has procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Court in directly issuing the 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 presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learn case, the learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safe enshrined under the law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the Sessions Court 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 2 counsel to move an application seeking exemption from personal appearance for the said date. However, due to inadvertence, the requisite medical documents were not annexed with the said application and the learned Court has rejected the exemption application of the petitioner and proceeded to cancel his bail. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner and an order for forfeiture of his bail and surety bonds was passed. t the denial of the exemption application of the petitioner and subsequently issuance of non-bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, absence was justified and duly communicated to the Court. Learned counsel has further contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Court in directly issuing the non bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to 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 presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case, the learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the petitioner bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the Sessions Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner ons Court on each and every date of hearing and counsel to move an application seeking exemption from personal appearance for the said date. However, due to inadvertence, the requisite medical documents were not annexed with the said application and the learned Court has rejected the exemption application of the petitioner and proceeded to cancel his bail. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner and an order for forfeiture of his bail and surety bonds was passed. t the denial of the exemption application of the was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, d and duly contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Court in directly issuing the non- bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to 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 presence of the ed counsel that in the instant case, the learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the petitioner bailable warrants and hence such an guard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the Sessions Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner ons Court on each and every date of hearing and AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a expeditious culmination of the trial. 3. 4. accepts notice on behalf of t opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before th plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date. 5. perused the available record. 6. judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 1978 SUPREME COURT 429 -16277-2025 also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a expeditious culmination of the trial. Notice of motion. Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG accepts notice on behalf of the official respondent opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before th plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: “10. The significance and sweep of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even community good and State necessity spelt out 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 punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice involved and society affected. 11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securin 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 3 also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a expeditious culmination AAG Haryana, who is present in Court, he official respondent-State of Haryana. He opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before the Sessions Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have this juncture, it would be apposite to refer 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 relevant whereof reads as under: 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-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 freedom- by refusal of bail is not for focal interests of justice-to the individual 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 also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a expeditious culmination , who is present in Court, has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of e Sessions Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a Gudikanti Narasimhulu AIR make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law handed and geared to the goals of , the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care by refusal of bail is not for to the individual We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of g 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6.1. Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, under:- 6.2. Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, -16277-2025 justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function 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 disappearan arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable 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 direction. Public justice is central t 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 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 commun 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. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, “Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of 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 submission to the jurisdiction and the judgm whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment ti Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, 4 justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, unction 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-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration reasonable and a Policy favouring release justly A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an 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 d 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 community. 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.” upreme Court in a judgment titled as Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, 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 submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end.” Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, unction 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 ce or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration reasonable and a Policy favouring release justly A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an o 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 tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of ity. 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 upreme Court in a judgment titled as has held as 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 submission the primary inquiry is led as AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 7. exemption from personal appearance was filed on behalf of the petitioner the ground that he was ill the said app against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of the application in hand amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner in bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his behalf. The issuance of non manner. It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording c reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course. -16277-2025 “21. In bail applications, gen earliest times that the object of bail 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 considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused 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 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 should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, “necessity 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 ex circumstances.” A perusal of the record reveals that an application for exemption from personal appearance was filed on behalf of the petitioner the ground that he was ill. However, the learned trial Court, while rejecting the said application, straight away proceeded to issue non against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of the application in hand amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner in the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his behalf. The issuance of non-bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording c reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course. 5 In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail 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 considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused 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 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-convicted pers should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the necessity” is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the 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 left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary A perusal of the record reveals that an application for exemption from personal appearance was filed on behalf of the petitioner However, the learned trial Court, while rejecting lication, straight away proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of the application in hand amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his behalf. 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. erally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail 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 person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after be innocent until duly tried From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the 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 traordinary A perusal of the record reveals that an application for exemption from personal appearance was filed on behalf of the petitioner on However, the learned trial Court, while rejecting bailable warrants against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rejection of the application in hand amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the the absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his behalf. bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical ogent AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8. the case; especially the factum of the prime object of cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds being securing petitioner shown by the petitioner every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that 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 petiti 9. (i) by the learned Sessions Judge, appearing before the trial/concerned Court on or before next date of hearing fixed in the said Court & shall furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the trial/co on each and every date of hearing. Apart from the aforesaid condition(s), the petitioner shall also surrender his passport 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. (ii) and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association. It is clar payment of the aforesaid costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit -16277-2025 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 -accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness shown by the petitioner-accused to appear before the trial Court on each and every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that 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. It is, thus, directed as follows: The impugned order dated 05.03.2025 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani is set appearing before the trial/concerned Court on or before next date of hearing fixed in the said Court & shall furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall continue to appear before the trial/co on each and every date of hearing. Apart from the aforesaid condition(s), the petitioner shall also surrender his passport Court. It is clarified that the trial/concerned Court shall be at liberty to such other condition(s) upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs. and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association. It is clar payment of the aforesaid costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit 6 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 the presence of the accused, the accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness accused to appear before the trial Court on each and every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that 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 on in hand deserves to be allowed. It is, thus, directed as follows: 05.03.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed is set-aside subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial/concerned Court on or before 28.03.2025 i.e. the next date of hearing fixed in the said Court & shall furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall continue 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 such other condition(s) upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.20,000/- 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 absence of deposit 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 the presence of the accused, the accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness 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 ) passed aside subject to the petitioner i.e. the next date of hearing fixed in the said Court & shall furnish an undertaking ncerned Court on each and every date of hearing. Apart from the aforesaid condition(s), the before the trial/concerned Court. It is clarified that the trial/concerned Court shall be at liberty to such other condition(s) upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate with the Punjab ified that payment of the aforesaid costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without any further (iii) March 25 Ajay -16277-2025 of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without any further reference to the Bench. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. 25, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.25 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document