HARJIT SINGH Vs. HDFC BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 2/12/2021 to the extent that penalty amounting to Rs.50,000.00 has been imposed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1881") in a Criminal Complaint dtd. 26/2/2016.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 had been adjourned on account of COVID pandemic and has referred to the zimni orders from 6/2/2021 to 23/9/2021. It is further submitted that from the zimni order dtd. 6/2/2021, it is apparent that the statement of the petitioner under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was to be recorded and notice was issued for 18/8/2021 and thereafter, the fresh notices were issued on 18/2/2021 as well as on 25/3/2021 and thereafter, on 3/5/2021, the case was adjourned on account of COVID pandemic and it is only on 23/9/2021 that report had come that the petitioner had been served and his bail order was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued for 3/12/2021. It is argued that the petitioner had moved a petition under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail on 26/11/2021 and had also referred to the medical record (Annexure P-4), as per which, the petitioner was having back problem and thus, he could not appear on 23/9/2021. It is further argued that although, the Sessions Judge, Sirsa was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner but however, imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000.00 in addition to the petitioner furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,50,000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each. It is contended that the said amount of Rs.50,000.00 is highly excessive and the same may either be set aside or reduced. Notice of motion.

(3.) On advance notice, Mr. Saurabh Bhardwaj, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana, appears on behalf of respondent No.2 and have submitted that they are fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. They have vehemently opposed the present petition and have thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present petition.