CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 117 Jaskaran Singh State of Haryana and another CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. seeking quashing of the order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram vide which the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled and summoned through warrants of arrest in Handa vs. Safe Store Mart Pvt Ltd 2. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument 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 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 petitione reports (c -20514-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jaskaran Singh V/s State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P udicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram vide which the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled and summoned through warrants of arrest in Handa vs. Safe Store Mart Pvt Ltd” bearing Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a false case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument 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 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 which copy whereof has been appended as Annexures P 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20514-2025 Date of decision: 16.04.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondents SUMEET GOEL Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS seeking quashing of the order dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by 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 bearing CIS No:NACT/34878/2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a false case under Section 138 of the Negotiable 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-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 which is supported by the medical opy whereof has been appended as Annexures P-3 to P- .2025 The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 6) passed by udicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram vide which the bail granted petitioner was ordered to be Sushil Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that a false case 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 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 is supported by the medical -5). AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.16 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- Learned counsel has further submitted that due to the medical condition of the petitioner 11.10.2024 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 Annexure P the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to the circumstances beyond his control, the learned Court below, without considering the inadvertence, 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 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 da issuance of non to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the petitioner’s absence was purely inadvertent. L 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 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 -20514-2025 Learned counsel has further submitted that due to the medical condition of the petitioner, he was unable 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 Annexure 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 of the petitioner before t 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 tes 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. L 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 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 Learned counsel has further submitted that due to the medical condition of able to appear before the Court below on 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 whereof of has been annexed as 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 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 appearance of the petitioner before the 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 tes of 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 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 Learned counsel has further submitted that due to the medical condition of able to appear before the Court below on 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 eof of has been annexed as 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 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 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 tes of hearing without fail. According to learned counsel, the bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the earned 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 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.16 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case, the l 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 cou 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 a also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious culmination of the trial. 3. of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Neg appropriate to call upon the respondents at this stage. 4. the available record. 5. judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 1978 SUPREME COURT 429 -20514-2025 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 cou 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 a also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious culmination of the trial. 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 Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it appropriate to call upon the respondents at this stage. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the available record. At this juncture, it would be apposite to r 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 3 presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in earned 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 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 a also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious 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 otiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it appropriate to call upon the respondents at this stage. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused 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 presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in earned 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 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 also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious 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 otiable Instruments Act, 1881, this Court does not deem it I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused efer 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.16 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 5.1. Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, under:- -20514-2025 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 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 4 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 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 individual 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.16 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 5.2. Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, 6. of bail, was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on 11.10.202 below on account of his ill health. However, the learned trial Court, stra away proceeded to issue non 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 -20514-2025 to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the whether a recognizance or bond wo 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 b 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 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 should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attenda 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 extraordinary circumstances.” A perusal of the record reveals t was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on 11.10.2024, the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court below on account of his ill health. However, the learned trial Court, stra away proceeded to issue 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, bona fides, or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his 5 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: 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 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 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 the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, 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 the petitioner, after the grant was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on , the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court below on account of his ill health. However, the learned trial Court, straight 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, , or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his the primary inquiry is Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the 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 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 earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. convicted persons nce 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, 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 hat the petitioner, after the grant was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on , the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court ight 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, , or a deliberate attempt to evade the proceedings on his AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.16 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- behalf. The issuance of non mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a 7. 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 shown by the petitioner every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that he shall cooperate for an expeditious culmination 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. (i) by the learned Court below is set before the trial/concerned Court on 09.06.2025 i.e. the next date of hearing fixed in the sa 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 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. -20514-2025 behalf. The issuance of 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 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 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 he shall cooperate for an expeditious culmination 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 11.10.2024 (Annexure P by the learned Court below is set-aside subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial/concerned Court on 09.06.2025 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 impose such other condition(s) upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate by it in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6 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. 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 ed 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 opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed. us, directed as follows: r dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed aside subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial/concerned Court on 09.06.2025 i.e. the next date of hearing id 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 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 bailable warrants must not be exercised in a mechanical manner. It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording 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 ed 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 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 appearing before the trial/concerned Court on 09.06.2025 i.e. the next date of hearing id 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 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.16 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- (ii) 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 of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without any further reference to the Bench. (iii) April 16, 202 Ajay -20514-2025 The petitioner shall deposit costs of Rs.10,000/ 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 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. , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 it costs of 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 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 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 ence of deposit of such costs, the present petition would be deemed to be dismissed without AJAY KUMAR 2025.04.16 14:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document