CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 139 Deepak Kumar State of Punjab CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. seeking quashing of the order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P learned Additional Sessi bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of his bail bonds and surety bonds to the State and petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non 06.11.2022 registered under Sections 307, 341, 148, 149, 506 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. 2. registration of the FIR, the petitioner had applied for regular bail before the Court below who after considering the merits thereof had granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that, since then, the petit below and was diligently attending all the hearings. Learned counsel has submitted that on 26.09.2024, when the matter was listed before the Court -16501-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Deepak Kumar V/s State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which the regular bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of his bail bonds and surety bonds to the State and petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants of arr 06.11.2022 registered under Sections 307, 341, 148, 149, 506 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that after ration of the FIR, the petitioner had applied for regular bail before the Court below who after considering the merits thereof had granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that, since then, the petitioner was regularly appearing before the Court below and was diligently attending all the hearings. Learned counsel has submitted that on 26.09.2024, when the matter was listed before the Court 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16501-2025 Date of decision: 27.03.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondent HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by ons Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which the regular bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of his bail bonds and surety bonds to the State and petitioner was ordered to be bailable warrants of arrest in FIR No.160 dated 06.11.2022 registered under Sections 307, 341, 148, 149, 506 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that after ration of the FIR, the petitioner had applied for regular bail before the Court below who after considering the merits thereof had granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated ioner was regularly appearing before the Court below and was diligently attending all the hearings. Learned counsel has submitted that on 26.09.2024, when the matter was listed before the Court .2025 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 4) passed by ons Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which the regular bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of his bail bonds and surety bonds to the State and petitioner was ordered to be est in FIR No.160 dated 06.11.2022 registered under Sections 307, 341, 148, 149, 506 of IPC and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that after ration of the FIR, the petitioner had applied for regular bail before the Court below who after considering the merits thereof had granted bail to the petitioner vide order dated 03.01.2023. Learned counsel has further iterated ioner was regularly appearing before the Court below and was diligently attending all the hearings. Learned counsel has submitted that on 26.09.2024, when the matter was listed before the Court AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- below, the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear as he had noted the wrong date of hearing. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to a bona fide mistake, the learned Court below, without considering the inadvertence, erroneously Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner vide impugned order i.e. 26.09.2024. Learned counsel has urged that the non appearance of the petitioner before the Court belo nor intentional but purely an inadvertent mistake beyond his control. 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 issuance of non to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the petitioner’s absence was purely inadvertent. Learned contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Court below in directly issuing the non 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 learned counsel that in the instant case, the learned petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel h -16501-2025 below, the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear as he had noted the wrong date of hearing. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to a bona fide mistake, 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. 26.09.2024. Learned counsel has urged that the non appearance of the petitioner before the Court belo nor intentional but purely an inadvertent mistake beyond his control. 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 warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the petitioner’s absence was purely inadvertent. Learned contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Court below 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 l 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 prior to resorting to the issuance of non hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel h 2 below, the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear as he had erroneously noted the wrong date of hearing. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to a bona fide mistake, the learned Court below, without considering the inadvertence, cancelled the bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner vide impugned order i.e. 26.09.2024. Learned counsel has urged that the non appearance of the petitioner before the Court below was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely an inadvertent mistake beyond his control. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention to evade the proceedings and undertakes to be present before the Court below on all hearing without fail. According to learned counsel, the bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the petitioner’s absence was purely inadvertent. Learned counsel has further contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Court below in directly bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is l 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 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 safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel has further iterated that erroneously noted the wrong date of hearing. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to a bona fide mistake, the learned Court below, without considering the inadvertence, cancelled the bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner vide impugned order i.e. 26.09.2024. Learned counsel has urged that the non- w was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely an inadvertent mistake beyond his control. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention to evade the proceedings and undertakes to be present before the Court below on all hearing without fail. According to learned counsel, the bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the counsel has further contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Court below in directly bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is l 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 trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural as further iterated that AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 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 also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a culmination of the trial. 3. 4. 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 the Court below & no plausible explanation has 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 -16501-2025 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 o cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a culmination of the trial. Notice of motion. Mr. Jasjeet S. Dhaliwal, AAG Punjab, who is present in Court, 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 the Court below & 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 perused the available record. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer her 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 fre punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice involved and society affected. 3 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 o cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious AAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondent-State of Punjab. 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 Court below & no 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 At 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 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 expeditious AAG Punjab, 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 bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before the Court below & no been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have ein 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 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:- -16501-2025 11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing 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 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 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 to 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 communit 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 judgment of the whether a recognizance or bond wo 4 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, 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-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration asonable 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 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.” reme 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.” We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of 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, 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 or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration asonable 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 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 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 reme 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 6.2. Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, 7. of regular bail by this Court was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on the Court below as he had noted a wrong date of hearing. However, the learned trial Court, straight away proceeded to issue non 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, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his behalf. The issuance of non must not be exercised in a -16501-2025 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, “21. 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. De 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 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 t 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 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.” A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner, after the grant of regular bail by this Court was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on 26.09.2024, the petitioner inadverte the Court below as he had noted a wrong date of hearing. However, the learned trial Court, straight away proceeded to issue non against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, this amounts 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 must not be exercised in a mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly 5 Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under: 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 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 at 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 persons 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 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 berty, save in the most extraordinary A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner, after the grant of regular bail by this Court was regularly appearing before the Court below. , the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court below as he had noted a wrong date of hearing. However, the learned trial Court, straight away proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, this amounts 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 mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as 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 privation 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 at 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. 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 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 berty, save in the most extraordinary A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner, after the grant of regular bail by this Court was regularly appearing before the Court below. ntly failed to appear before the Court below as he had noted a wrong date of hearing. However, the bailable warrants against the petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, this amounts 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 bailable warrants mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course. 8. the case; especially the factum of the prime forfeiture of bail bonds being securing the presence of the accused, the petitioner shown by the petitioner 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 opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed. 9. (i) by the learned Court below is set before the trial/concerned Court on or before 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 d 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 circumstances of the case. (ii) and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association. It is clarified that -16501-2025 and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case; especially the factum of the prime forfeiture of bail bonds being securing the presence of the accused, the -accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness shown by the petitioner-accused to appear before the trial Court on each 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. It is, thus, directed as follows: The impugned order dated 26.09.2024 by the learned Court below is set-aside sub before the trial/concerned Court on or before 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 d 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. The petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs. and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association. It is clarified that 6 and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a 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 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 prosecution evidence; this Court is the considered opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed. It is, thus, directed as follows: 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed aside subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial/concerned Court on or before 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 d 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 petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and The petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.25,000/- with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association. It is clarified that and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of object of cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail bonds being securing the presence of the accused, the accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness 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 prosecution evidence; this Court is the considered 4) passed ject to the petitioner appearing before the trial/concerned Court on or before 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 impose such other petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association. It is clarified that AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- payment of the aforesa the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without any further reference to the Bench. (iii) March 27 Ajay -16501-2025 payment of the aforesaid costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit 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. 27, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 id costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit 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 id costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of deposit of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without AJAY KUMAR 2025.03.27 17:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document