SUNIL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dtd. 5/8/2022 (Annexure P-4) whereby bail granted to the petitioner vide order dtd. 28/8/2018 (Annexure P-2) has been cancelled and arrest warrants have been issued against the petitioner by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind in Sessions trial case titled 'State of Haryana Vs. Rajesh and others' bearing No.SC/214/2018 (Annexure P-1) registered at Police Station, Jind Sadar under Ss. 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act and Ss. 148, 149, 307 and 120-B of the IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that FIR was registered against the petitioner on 16/4/2018, Annexure P-1 wherein it is his submission that the petitioner was falsely implicated. He was granted regular bail vide order dtd. 28/8/2018, Annexure P-2 by the trial Court. Challan was presented on 24/8/2018 and the petitioner had been attending each and every date of hearing. Charges were also framed on 22/4/2019, however, despite grant of twenty opportunities the prosecution evidence still remains un-concluded. On 19/7/2022, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court, however, since no prosecution witness was present on that day, the case was adjourned to 5/8/2022. He submits that however on account of miscommunication between the petitioner and the clerk of his counsel, the petitioner noted a wrong date as 5/10/2022 instead of 5/8/2022 and on account of the aforesaid, the petitioner could not appear on 5/8/2022, on which date, his bail was cancelled and arrest warrants were issued along with notice to his surety and identifier. The petitioner became aware of the aforesaid order only on 4/10/2022 when he contacted the office of his counsel. Anticipatory bail application filed by him before this Court being not maintainable was withdrawn on 17/10/2022, Annexure P-5. He submits that the absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate but for reasons aforesaid.

(3.) He, however, submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to join the proceedings, and prays that one opportunity may be granted for the said purpose which may even be, subject to payment of costs. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgment of this Court in CRM-M-38277-2022 dtd. 26/8/2022, in the case of "Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab", CRM-M-39000-2022, titled as Raghav vs. State of Punjab, decided on 9/9/2022 and Major Singh vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-3649-2022, decided on 15/9/2022.