Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of orders declining permanent exemption from personal appearance and cancelling bail in a criminal trial under Sections 323/354/452/342/506 IPC. The petitioner claimed he had surrendered pursuant to an interim order but could not substantiate it; the High Court dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
116+214 CRM-M-21291-2019(O&M)
Date of order: 19.10.2024
Soumyajit Roy
…..Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana
…..Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:Mr. Manish Soni, Advoca t e for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Pal Singla, AA G Haryana. *****
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is file d seeking qua s hing of impugned order dated 15.02.2018(P/6), passed by Ld . JMIC, Gurug r am whereby an application dated 02.04.2016 (P/5) filed by th e petitioner s e eking permanent exemption from personal appearance in Criminal Cas e No. CHI/4663/2015 in FIR No.357 dated 01.10.2015 (P/1) U/ s 323/354/45 2 /342/506 IPC registered at P. S . Sushant Lok, Distt. Gurugra m has been w rongly and illegally declined a long with all the subsequen t proceedings initiated thereupon; AND the impugned order date d 09.03.2018 (P/7) whereby the bail of the p e titioner has been cancelled o n account of n on-appearance and warrant o f arrest has been issued agains t the present petitioner; AND further to allo w the application (P/5) filed b y the petition e r and thereby to grant perman e nt exemption from appearanc e
SUNENA 2024.10.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRM-M-21291-2019(O&M)
Page 2 of 5
to the petiti o ner in the aforesaid trial, for the reasons delineated herein th e present peti t ion as well as in the interest of j ustice & fair play.
3. No other argument is ma d e on behalf of the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner an d
perused the case file in great detail.
5. Perusal of record of the c ase shows that the present FI R No.357 dat e d 01.10.2015 was registered against the petitioner, unde r Sections 32 3 , 354 and 452 IPC at Polic e Station Sushant Lok Distric t Gurugram b y the father of the victim with the allegations that a telephoni c message wa s received on the mobile phone from his daughter/the victi m that on 1.1 0 .2015, the petitioner had for c ibly entered into her flat an d snatched her phone and manhandled her a nd molested her and beat he r up. It was f urther alleged that the petiti o ner had given threats to th e victim. It w a s accordingly prayed that ste r n action be taken against th e petitioner. A fter investigation, challan was p resented against the petitione r on 16.12.20 1 5; and charges were framed on 02.04.2016.
6. The file reveals that it is the case of the petitioner tha t he resides a n d works in UAE. As such he ha d filed an application before th e learned trial Court seeking permission to tr a vel to Dubai which was allowe d by the lear n ed Area Magistrate, Gurugra m vide order dated 05.11.201 5
SUNENA 2024.10.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRM-M-21291-2019(O&M)
Page 3 of 5
(Annexure P - 4), subject to the condition tha t “ …accused Soumyajit Roy shal l continue to attend the proceedings befor e this court on each and ever y date…”.
7. Thereafter the petitione r had filed an application date d 02.04.2016 u nder Section 205 Cr.P.C. (An n exure P-5) seeking permanen t exemption f rom appearance before the learned trial Court. Vide th e impugned o r der dated 15.02.2018 (Annex u re P-6) the said application o f the petition e r was declined by the learned trial Court taking into accoun t the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “TGN Kumar vs. State Kerala and others” 2011 (1) RCR Criminal 507 (SC)”, that permanen t exemption c a nnot be claimed by the accused as a matter of right and it can only be gra n ted if the fact and circumstances of the case allows. Th e learned trial Court took note of the fact th a t vide order dated 05.11.201 5 the petition e r was allowed to travel to Du b ai for joining his job, however , with the co n dition that the petitioner shall c ontinue to attend proceeding s before the C ourt. It has been categorically n oted by the learned trial cour t in the impu g ned order dated 15.02.2018 (A n nexure P-6) that the petitione r had on on e pretext or the other rem a ined absent through variou s exemption applications filed on several dates of hearing. Even on the said date the pet i tioner had applied for exempti o n from personal appearance. I t was recorded that in fact, since the frami n g of charge on 02.04.2016 th e petitioner h a d been avoiding personal appearance on one pretext or th e other and had remained absent. It was in this background that the sai d application o f the petitioner came to be dis m issed.
SUNENA 2024.10.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRM-M-21291-2019(O&M)
Page 4 of 5
8. Despite the above facts the petitioner failed to put in
appearance before the learned trial Co u rt. As such, vide the secon d impugned o r der dated 09.03.2018 (Annex u re P-7) the learned trial Cour t cancelled th e bail granted to the petitioner a nd forfeited the bail bonds an d issued warr a nts of arrest against the peti t ioner through the Ministry o f External Aff a irs and SHO concerned. In p assing the said direction th e learned trial Court took note of the fact t h at the case had been fixed fo r prosecution evidence, and vide orders dat e d 05.11.2015, 15.02.2018 and 27.02.2018 t he petitioner had been direct e d to appear in person to fac e trial. It was recorded that despite clear dire c tion of the Court the petitione r had failed to put in appearance. Each ti m e exemption application wa s moved on b e half of the petitioner that he is out of India, and he is unabl e to appear. It was duly noted that the petitioner on one pretext or the othe r is evading proceedings and causing delay in trial. In these circumstances , the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled, his bail bonds wer e forfeited, a n d warrants of arrest were issued for 22.03.2018 through th e Ministry of External Affairs.
9. The said orders have be e n challenged by the petitione r before this C ourt by way of present petition. While issuing notice of motio n vide order d a ted 09.05.2019 a Coordinate B ench of this Court had directed the petition e r “…to surrender before the l e arned trial Court within 7 day s from today a nd on doing so, he shall be r e leased on interim bail by tha t Court to its s atisfaction…” . It was further di r ected that keeping in mind th e fact that the petitioner is working in a B ank in Dubai “…the persona l
SUNENA 2024.10.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CRM-M-21291-2019(O&M)
Page 5 of 5
presence of t he petitioner shall remain exe m pted subject to the conditions, if any impos e d by the Court below.”
11. Accordingly, in view of t he facts as noticed above, th e
present peti t ion is dismissed.
19.10.2024 (Nidhi Gupta) Sunena Judge Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No
SUNENA 2024.10.22 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was entitled to permanent exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C.
Whether the trial court's order cancelling bail and issuing warrants for non-appearance was liable to be quashed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
TGN Kumar vs. State Kerala and othersRelied on¶7
2011 (1) RCR Criminal 507 (SC)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Soumyajit Roy
State of Haryana
Nidhi Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
