CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 305 Anuj Bawa State of Haryana and another CORAM: Present: SUMEET GOEL 1. Cr.P.C., 1973 (corresponding Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) seeking quashing of the order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P Gurugram vide which the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled; his surety bonds were cancelled and forfeite be summoned through non bearing No. NACT NACT-29414, NACT all of 2021 2. 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 vide order dated before the Court below. Learned counsel has further submitted that the -37591-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Anuj Bawa V/s State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET Mr. Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG Haryana. Mr. Ambanshu Sahni, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of 1973 (corresponding Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) seeking quashing of the order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P Gurugram vide which the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled; his surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State and he was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants in bearing No. NACT-29431 (main case), NACT 29414, NACT-29425, NACT-29422, NACT all of 2021 and his defence was also ordered to be struck off. 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 21.12.2021 and was diligently attending all the hearings before the Court below. Learned counsel has further submitted that the 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-37591-2025 Date of decision: 24.07.202 ....Petitioner ....Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Rahul Bhargava, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG Haryana. Mr. Ambanshu Sahni, Advocate for respondent No.2. ***** The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of 1973 (corresponding Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) seeking quashing of the order dated 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by Magistrate (JMFC), Gurugram vide which the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled; his d to the State and he was ordered to bailable warrants in eight complaint case 29431 (main case), NACT-29405, NACT-29408, 29422, NACT-29413, NACT-29418 lso ordered to be struck off. 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 by the Court below in the said case and was diligently attending all the hearings before the Court below. Learned counsel has further submitted that the .2025 The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of 1973 (corresponding Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) seeking quashing 1) passed by Magistrate (JMFC), Gurugram vide which the bail granted to the petitioner stands cancelled; his d to the State and he was ordered to complaint cases 29408, 29418 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 by the Court below in the said case and was diligently attending all the hearings before the Court below. Learned counsel has further submitted that the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- petitioner has consistently appeared on all the prior dates and there is n indication of any evasive conduct on his part. In these circumstances, the Court ought to first attempt to secure the presence of the petitioner by issuing bailable warrants in the event of a single default rather than immediately resorting to non submitted that the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court below on 25.04.2025 contact his counsel in time and issuance of non to be struck off 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 L the non-appearance of the petitioner before the Court below was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely circumstantial. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention to evade the proceedings and undertake to be present before the Court below on all future dates of hearing without fail. According to learned counsel, the issuance of non was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly Learned counsel has further contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Court below in directly issuing the non petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to -37591-2025 petitioner has consistently appeared on all the prior dates and there is n indication of any evasive conduct on his part. In these circumstances, the Court ought to first attempt to secure the presence of the petitioner by issuing bailable warrants in the event of a single default rather than immediately resorting to non-bailable warrants. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court below on 25.04.2025 on account of the fact that the petitioner has not been able to contact his counsel in time and hence led to the cancellation issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest to be struck off vide the impugned order. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to umstances 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 L appearance of the petitioner before the Court below was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely circumstantial. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention to evade the proceedings and undertake to be present before the Court below on all future dates of hearing without fail. According to learned counsel, the issuance of non 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 issuing the non petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to 2 petitioner has consistently appeared on all the prior dates and there is n indication of any evasive conduct on his part. In these circumstances, the Court ought to first attempt to secure the presence of the petitioner by issuing bailable warrants in the event of a single default rather than ble warrants. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court below on the fact that the petitioner has not been able to hence led to the cancellation of his bail and bailable warrants of arrest and his defence was also ordered vide the impugned order. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to umstances 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 Learned counsel has urged that appearance of the petitioner before the Court below was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely circumstantial. Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention to evade the proceedings and undertake 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 when the petitioner’s absence was purely inadvertent. Learned counsel has further 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 petitioner has consistently appeared on all the prior dates and there is no indication of any evasive conduct on his part. In these circumstances, the Court ought to first attempt to secure the presence of the petitioner by issuing bailable warrants in the event of a single default rather than ble warrants. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was unable to appear before the Court below on the fact that the petitioner has not been able to of his bail and and his defence was also ordered vide the impugned order. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to umstances 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 earned counsel has urged that appearance of the petitioner before the Court below was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely circumstantial. 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 bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial when the petitioner’s absence was purely inadvertent. Learned counsel has further contended that the procedure adopted by the bailable warrants against the the settled principles of AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 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 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 bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the pr 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 for an expeditious culmination of t 3. prayer, contending that the petitioner has deliberately and willfully failed to appear before the Court below. Learned counsel has further iterated that the in view of the condu striking off the defence of the petitioner. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for. 4. perused 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 -37591-2025 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 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 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 for an expeditious culmination of t Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer, contending that the petitioner has deliberately and willfully failed to appear before the Court below. Learned counsel has further iterated that the in view of the conduct of the petitioner, the Court below is justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner. Thus, dismissal of the instant petition is entreated for. I have heard learned counsel for the 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 3 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 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 bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and ocedural 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 for an expeditious culmination of the trial. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer, contending that the petitioner has deliberately and willfully failed to appear before the Court below. Learned counsel has further iterated that the ct of the petitioner, the Court below is justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner. Thus, dismissal of the instant 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 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 prior to resorting to the issuance of non- bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and ocedural 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 Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has opposed the prayer, contending that the petitioner has deliberately and willfully failed to appear before the Court below. Learned counsel has further iterated that the ct of the petitioner, the Court below is justified in striking off the defence of the petitioner. Thus, dismissal of the instant and have At 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 AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:14 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:- -37591-2025 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 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 disa 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 ce 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 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 f circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or 4 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 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 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 bail unreasonable 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 ted, and 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.” n’ble Supreme 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 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 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, 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 ppearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration bail unreasonable 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 ntral 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 tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of 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 n’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as has held as the acts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:14 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 25.04.2025 below on account of learned trial Court, straight away proceeded to issue non against the petitioner struck off unjustifiable restriction on th -37591-2025 imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the 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, “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. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure t 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 att 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 revea of bail, was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on 25.04.2025, the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court below on account of circumstances beyond his control rned trial Court, straight away proceeded to issue non against the petitioner and the defence of the petitioner was also ordered to be struck off. In the considered opinion of this Court, this amounts to an unjustifiable restriction on the procedural rights of the petitioner in the 5 imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is r 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 ject 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 conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried 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 the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, 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 the petitioner, after the grant of bail, was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on , the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court circumstances beyond his control. However, the rned trial Court, straight away proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants and the defence of the petitioner was also ordered to be . In the considered opinion of this Court, this amounts to an e procedural rights of the petitioner in the imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission 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 ject 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 hat 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 the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. convicted persons endance 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, 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 ls that the petitioner, after the grant of bail, was regularly appearing before the Court below. However, on , the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear before the Court . However, the bailable warrants and the defence of the petitioner was also ordered to be . In the considered opinion of this Court, this amounts to an e procedural rights of the petitioner in the AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- absence of any misconduct, lack of evade the proceedings on his behalf. The issuance of non and striking of the defence must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that reflect the necessity of such a stringent course. 7. the case; especially the factum of the prime object 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 prosec opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed. 8. (i) by Magistrate (JMFC), Gurugram appearing before the trial/concerned Court on 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. grant the petitioner two effective opportunities to lead his defence evidence. However, this shall be subject to the payment of costs amounting to Rs.25,000/ -37591-2025 absence of any misconduct, lack of bona fides evade the proceedings on his behalf. The issuance of non and striking of the defence must not be exercised in a mechan 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 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 ry 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 25.04.2025 (Annexure P by Magistrate (JMFC), Gurugram is set appearing before the trial/concerned Court on 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 y date of hearing. Furthermore, the concerned Court grant the petitioner two effective opportunities to lead his defence evidence. However, this shall be subject to the payment of costs amounting to Rs.25,000/-, to be remitted to respondent 6 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 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 accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness accused to appear before the trial Court on each and ry 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 ution evidence; this Court is the considered opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed. It is, thus, directed as follows: 25.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed is set-aside subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial/concerned Court on 23.10.2025 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 Furthermore, the concerned Court is directed to grant the petitioner two effective opportunities to lead his defence evidence. However, this shall be subject to the payment of costs amounting to , to be remitted to respondent No.2-complainant. It is clarified , or a deliberate attempt to bailable warrants ical manner. It must be adopted sparingly and only upon recording cogent reasons that Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of 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 ry 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 ution evidence; this Court is the considered 1) passed t to the petitioner 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 is directed to grant the petitioner two effective opportunities to lead his defence evidence. However, this shall be subject to the payment of costs amounting to complainant. It is clarified AJAY KUMAR 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 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 without any further reference to the Bench. (ii) (iii) surrender his passport, if any, before the trial/concer 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. (iv) July 24, 202 Ajay -37591-2025 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 without any further reference to the Bench. Trial Court is directed to expedite the culmination of the trial. Apart from the aforesaid condition(s), the petitioner shall also surrender his passport, if any, before the trial/concer 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. Pending application(s), if any, stands dis , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 7 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 any further reference to the Bench. Trial Court is directed to expedite the culmination of the trial. 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 Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No that payment of the aforesaid costs and production of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition precedent. In absence of dismissed Trial Court is directed to expedite the culmination of the trial. Apart from the aforesaid condition(s), the petitioner shall also ned 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 2025.07.24 17:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document