156 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA GURINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. for the petitioner. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This petition has been filed under Section seeking quashing of case bearing No.CHI/46/2024 titled as Ginda’ in case 387 of IPC and Section 66 Deleted) registered at Police Station the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail bonds/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State followed by issuance of non 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was granted the permission to go abroad 07.05.2024 passed by (Annexure P-5) 31.01.2025. He appeared before the learned trial Court in terms of the order dated 07.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner was again g IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH GURINDER SINGH V/S PUNJAB AND ANOTHER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section seeking quashing of impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P case bearing No.CHI/46/2024 titled as ‘State of Punjab vs. Gurinder Singh @ stemming from FIR No.351 dated and Section 66-A of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Now registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Amritsar the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail bonds/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State followed by issuance of non Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner was granted the permission to go abroad 07.05.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and was directed to surrender before the learned trial Court on 31.01.2025. He further contends that the petitioner returned on time and appeared before the learned trial Court in terms of the order dated 07.05.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner was again granted permission to go abroad vide IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-27200-2025 Date of decision: 19.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS HARPREET SINGH BRAR This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 impugned order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-18) in ‘State of Punjab vs. Gurinder Singh @ dated 09.12.2020 under Section (Amendment) Act, 2008 (Now Civil Lines, District Amritsar, whereby, the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail bonds/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was granted the permission to go abroad vide order dated Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and was directed to surrender before the learned trial Court on contends that the petitioner returned on time and appeared before the learned trial Court in terms of the order dated 07.05.2024. ranted permission to go abroad vide MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-27200 order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P directed to surrender before the petitioner moved an application on 04.04.2025 seeking extension of time permission to stay abroad on the ground that his personal hearing was fixed before the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to be attended by the petitioner in person. To substantiate the same, the petitioner relies upon Annexures P-13 and P passed by the jurisdictional Court at Brisbane. appearance, the learned trial Court 18), without taking into consideration the genuine request o compelling circumstances, for which, he could not surrender within time, has cancelled the bail of the petitioner and non 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearance of the aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order ground of unintentional non 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertake the trial Court on and every date. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, Court, accepts notice for the respondent order has been passed on the sole ground of the absence of the petitioner, 27200-2025 2 order dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned trial Court directed to surrender before the said Court on 22.04.2025. petitioner moved an application on 04.04.2025 seeking extension of time permission to stay abroad on the ground that his personal hearing was fixed before the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to be attended by the petitioner in person. To substantiate the same, the petitioner relies upon 13 and P-19 i.e. the orders dated 03.03.2025 and 02.05.2025 passed by the jurisdictional Court at Brisbane. appearance, the learned trial Court vide order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P 18), without taking into consideration the genuine request o compelling circumstances, for which, he could not surrender within time, has cancelled the bail of the petitioner and non-bailable warrant Learned counsel for the petitioner appearance of the petitioner was not deliberate aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order ground of unintentional non-appearance of the petitioner It is also submitted that the petitioner undertake the trial Court on the next date of hearing i.e. 04.06.2025 and further, on Notice of motion. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, Court, accepts notice for the respondent-State and submits that the impugned been passed on the sole ground of the absence of the petitioner, 2) passed by learned trial Court and was Court on 22.04.2025. However, the petitioner moved an application on 04.04.2025 seeking extension of time of permission to stay abroad on the ground that his personal hearing was fixed before the Federal Court of Australia, which was required to be attended by the petitioner in person. To substantiate the same, the petitioner relies upon 9 i.e. the orders dated 03.03.2025 and 02.05.2025 passed by the jurisdictional Court at Brisbane. However, upon his non- vide order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P- 18), without taking into consideration the genuine request of the petitioner and compelling circumstances, for which, he could not surrender within time, has bailable warrants were issued. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that non- was not deliberate or intentional and thus, aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the next date of hearing i.e. 04.06.2025 and further, on each Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, who is present in and submits that the impugned been passed on the sole ground of the absence of the petitioner, MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-27200 however, it is not disputed by him that petitioner been appearing before the trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 8. Many a times, the accused can be pre to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and wi explanation offered for non therefore, the same is accepted. 9. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vic 10. The sole purpose of issuance of non presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner case has himself Court on each and every date. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The impugned vide which, the bail bonds and bail order of the petitioner non-bailable warrants were issued, is 27200-2025 3 however, it is not disputed by him that petitioner ring before the trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. Many a times, the accused can be pre to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and wi explanation offered for non-appearance before the Court is justified and, therefore, the same is accepted. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain ealthy balance between personal liberty of the individual interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. The sole purpose of issuance of non presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before Court on each and every date. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present wed. The impugned order dated the bail bonds and bail order of the petitioner bailable warrants were issued, is hereby set aside. however, it is not disputed by him that petitioner was already on bail and had I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the Many a times, the accused can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and willful absence. The appearance before the Court is justified and, While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain ealthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just e of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present undertaken to appear before the trial In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present order dated 22.04.2025 (Annexure P-18), the bail bonds and bail order of the petitioner were cancelled and hereby set aside. MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-27200 12. Petitioner 04.06.2025 and on bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, al costs of Rs.10,000/ Society, Amritsar 13. Receipt of payment of cost m Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. 14. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this Court shall be deemed to be vacated. May 19, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 27200-2025 4 etitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court and on his doing so, he shall be admitted to bail on bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, al ,000/- to be deposited with All India Pingalwara Charitable Society, Amritsar for wasting precious time of the Court. Receipt of payment of cost must be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this rt shall be deemed to be vacated. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable is directed to appear before the trial Court on or before doing so, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, along with All India Pingalwara Charitable for wasting precious time of the Court. ust be presented before learned trial Court and learned trial Court is directed to verify the same. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No MANISHA 2025.05.20 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment