DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the order dtd. 26/9/2024 (Annexure P P-4) 4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which the regular bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of his bail bonds and surety bonds to the State and petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable non bailable warrants of arr arrest est in FIR No.160 dtd. 6/11/2022 registered under Ss. 307, 341, 148, 149, 506 of IPC and Ss. 25, 27 of the Arms Act at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that after registration ration of the FIR, the petitioner had applied for regular bail before the Court below who after considering the merits thereof had granted bail to the petitioner vide order dtd. 3/1/2023. Learned counsel has further iterated that, since then, the petitioner petitioner was regularly appearing before the Court below and was diligently attending all the hearings. Learned counsel has submitted that on 26/9/2024, when the matter was listed before the Court below, the petitioner inadvertently failed to appear as he had erroneously noted the wrong date of hearing. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to a bona fide mistake, 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 i.e. 26/9/2024. Learned counsel has urged that the non- non appearance of the petitioner before the Court belo beloww was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely an inadvertent mistake beyond his control. 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 fail. According to learned counsel, the issuance of non-bailable non bailable warrants 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-bailable non bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is welll 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 non-bailable bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel hhas as further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the Court below as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the Sessions Court on each and every date of hearing and also o cooperate therein, in accordance with law for aan expeditious culmination of the trial.

(3.) Notice of motion.