Remanded

Pradeep Kumar Verma and Another v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2023CRM-M/2498/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the impugned orders cancelling bail bonds and forfeiting surety bonds due to the petitioner's dengue-induced non-appearance, directing his summon and fresh bond submission subject to costs. Order.

What did the court decide?

Bail bonds cancelled and surety bonds forfeited. Petitioner directed to appear on fixed date and submit fresh bonds to trial court satisfaction Rs. 10,000/-.

Pradeep Kumar Verma and Another Vs State of U.T… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

115 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-2498-2023 Date of Decision: January 18, 2023

¶3

PRADEEP KUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHER ....... Petitioners

¶4

Versus

¶5

STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

¶6

........ Respondent

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

¶8

Present: Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶9

Ms. Yashwant Singh Rathore, Addl. P.P. for U.T.Chandigarh with Ms. Sudha Singh, Advocate and Mr. Yuvraj Singh Rathore, Advocate.

¶10

¶11

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

By way of the present petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the orders dated 15.10.2022 and 30.11.2022 passed by the trial Court whereby the bail bonds of the petitioners were cancelled and the surety bonds forfeited followed by non-bailable warrants issued against him.

¶13

The facts of the case are that on account of dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.4,23,000/-, a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, came to be filed at the instance of the complainant-respondent No.2 wherein after issuance of summoning order against petitioner, he was granted concession of regular bail vide order dated 01.08.2022 passed by trial Court.

¶14

TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.01.19 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment P&H High Court, Chandigarh

¶15

On the very next date of hearing i.e. on 15.10.2022, the petitioner being suffering from dengue could not appear before the trial Court, resulting into cancellation of his bail bonds, forfeiture of his surety bonds followed by issuance of non-bailable warrant against him.

¶16

Though, the petitioner attempted to approach this Court by way of CRM-M-55583-2022, impugning the order dated 15.10.2022, however, vide order dated 01.12.2022 the same was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court again with better particulars as in the meanwhile, a proclamation against him under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was also ordered to be published vide order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the trial Court.

¶17

It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.10.2022 as well as 30.11.2022 passed by the trial Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the nonappearance of petitioner No.1 on 15.10.2022 was only because of his illhealth and he being a law-abiding citizen never intended to avoid the process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the petitioner No.1 undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date except for being granted exemption specifically.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

¶20

I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. A perusal of the record shows that the non-appearance of petitioner No.1 on the date fixed i.e. 15.10.2022 was on account of reasons beyond his control, he being suffering from dengue. Even besides it, the present is not a case where the petitioner No.1 was TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.01.19 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment P&H High Court, Chandigarh

¶21

avoiding the process of law as the petitioner immediately approached this Court in the last week of November 2022, challenging the orders dated 15.10.2022 passed against him but somehow, on account of the fact that by the time the proclamation had already been ordered against him he had to withdraw the previous petition.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid circumstances finding that the nonappearance of the petitioner No.1 on account of his ill-health and not on account of any mala fide reasons, he is directed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed and submit fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The aforesaid order shall however be subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost in the following bank account:-

¶23

Account name: Punjab and Haryana high court Association Lawyer’s Welfare Fund Account No: 41564846387 Bank Name: S.B.I. High Court Branch.

¶24

Disposed of.

¶25

18.01.2023 ( HARKESH MANUJA ) tejwinder JUDGE

¶26

tejwinder

¶27

Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶28

TEJWINDER SINGH 2023.01.19 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment P&H High Court, Chandigarh

Pradeep Kumar Verma and Another v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Verma and Another v. State of U.T. Chandigarh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Singh Vs N/S Gauav Electronics and Anr.

Ballar @ Navi Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Gurmeet Singh @ Meeta Vs State of Punjab

Sonu @ Manda Vs State of Haryana

Balbir Singh Alias Pammu Alias Balvir Vs State of Punjab

Rajiv @ Raju Vs State of Haryana