Major vs State Of Punjab CRMM 25822/23 22/05/23 [ HARPREET JJ ]

[ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]

• Sections 73, 446 and 482 CRPC Forfeiture of surety bond Mere absence of the accused on one date before trial Court in itself is not sufficient to conclude that he is evading his arrest and cannot be sole ground for issuance of non bailable warrants Courts can most certainly take into consideration conduct of accused if he is impeding progress of trial and is on earlier occasion he was declared proclaimed offender and on account of his continuous absence from trial, trial considerably protracted and his past behaviour is relevant for purpose of recording satisfaction under relevant provisions of Code – Hence, forfeiture and cancellation of surety bonds including issuance of nonbailable warrants set aside.

29. In view of the factual position of the law discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that for passing any orders in terms of Section 73(1), Section 82(1), Section 446 of the Code, the recording of the satisfaction with regard to evading of the arrest, the willful concealment and breach of the conditions of the bail bond is absolutely necessary. The constitutional protection provided under Article 21 requires that the accused must be granted opportunity in terms of principles of natural justice before any adverse order curtailing a person’s liberty is passed. The Courts cannot issue non bailable warrants in a routine manner without following the drill prescribed under the Code. The Court is required to record its satisfaction on the basis of material available on record and atleast assign reasons for concluding that the accused is willfully evading his arrest and the warrants cannot be executed. The non-bailable warrants are only to be issued after exhausting the other methods of securing the presence of the accused. Mere absence of the accused on one date before the trial Court in itself is not sufficient to conclude that he is evading his arrest and cannot be the sole ground for issuance of non bailable warrants. The Courts can most certainly take into consideration the conduct of the accused if he is impeding the progress of the trial and is on earlier occasion he was declared a proclaimed offender and on account of his continuous absence from the trial, the trial has been considerably protracted. His past behaviour is a relevant for the purpose of recording satisfaction under the relevant provisions of the Code.

30. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has not followed the drill of the procedure provided under Sections 73, 82, 446 of the Code. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin Vs. Union of India 2020(3) SCC 637 has laid down the ratio that the procedural safeguards provided under the statute are required ot be mandatorily followed and following was observed:
“98. We also direct that all the above procedural safeguards, as elucidated by us, need to be mandatorily followed. In this context, this Court in the Hukam Chand Shyam Lal case (supra), observed as follows:
“18. It is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other amodes (sic) of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature…” (emphasis supplied).”
31. The sole purpose for cancellation of bail bonds or issuance of proclamation is to secure presence of the accused. The petitioner in the present case undertakes to appear before the learned trial Court on each and every date.
32. The learned State counsel is not able to controvert the factual position as well as the settled law on the issue at hand.
CONCLUSION
33. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.12.2022 and 03.04.2023 Annexure P-5 and P-6, respectively, passed by the learned trial Court are set aside and the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on or before 03.07.2023 and on his doing so the learned trial Court shall admit him to bail on furnishing of fresh bail

For read the judgment click here 

 

CRM-M_25822_2023_22_05_2023_FINAL_ORDER Major Singh @ Major vs State of Punjab

All rights reserved (𝔸𝕕𝕧 Vaibhav Tomar)