Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47225 (PNJ)

VIKRAM v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/20737/2025 · 2025-04-22

Rajesh Bhardwaj

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-20737-2025 1 132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-20737-2025 Date of decision : 22.04.2025 Vikram .....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Balvinder Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in case bearing No.SC/3667/2018 titled as ‘State of Haryana Vs. Vikram etc.’ arising out of FIR No.215 dated 19.04.2018 under Section 379-A, 511 IPC registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad, whereby arrest warrants of the petitioner have been issued and bail was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited. Further prayer has been made for staying the operation and implementation of impugned order dated 20.02.2025. 2. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the above said case, the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner was unable to appear on 20.02.2025. He has submitted that application for exemption from personal appearance was moved and the same was POOJA SHARMA 2025.04.23 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20737-2025 2 declined and his bail was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State. He has submitted that absence of the petitioner was totally unintentional. He has further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the trial Court and comply with all the conditions imposed upon her. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. 5. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that the trial Court has rightly cancelled the bail granted of the petitioner who remained absent on 20.02.2025 without any valid reason. 6. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is apparent that the petitioner remained absent on 20.02.2025 and his bail was cancelled. Now, the petitioner is keen to join the proceedings. So keeping in view the abovesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 is set aside subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to be paid to the ‘Spinal Rehab Centre, Chandigarh, Plot No.1, Madhya Marg, Sector-28/A, Chandigarh’ by the petitioner within one week from today. In case, the petitioner appears and surrenders before the Court concerned within a period of 10 days from today and files an application for bail alongwith receipt of abovesaid costs, the Court concerned is directed to admit him to bail subject to its satisfaction and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. He will have protection from arrest for a period of 10 days from today. POOJA SHARMA 2025.04.23 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-20737-2025 3 7. Needless to say that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the abovesaid direction, he will have no benefit of abovesaid protection granted by this Court and order under challenge dated 20.02.2025 would come in force and the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 22.04.2025 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) ps-I JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2025.04.23 13:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document