Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 917
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
V.M. Jain, J.
Karnail Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Misc. No. 25298-M of 2000.
Decided On : 11 August, 2000
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.S. Rajput, Advocate.
The trial court has the authority to cancel bail granted by the High Court if the accused fails to comply with the conditions of bail, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants.
Headnote:
Bail - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 482, 363, 366, 376, 344, 496, 506, 34 IPC - The court discussed the power of the trial court to cancel bail granted by the High Court, the conditions for bail cancellation, and the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The court cited relevant case laws and concluded that the trial court was justified in cancelling the bail and ordering non-bailable warrants due to the accused's absence from the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner was granted bail by the High Court but later absented himself from the trial court, leading to the cancellation of his bail, forfeiture of bonds, and issuance of non-bailable warrants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court was justified in cancelling the bail and ordering non-bailable warrants due to the accused's absence from the trial court.
Issues: The main issue was the authority of the trial court to cancel bail granted by the High Court and the circumstances under which bail can be cancelled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if an accused fails to appear before the trial court as required, the bail can be cancelled, bonds forfeited, and non-bailable warrants issued to secure the accused's presence.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the trial court's decision to cancel the bail and order non-bailable warrants.
V.M. Jain, J. - This is a petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code filed by Karnail Singh, accused-petitioner. In the petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner was involved in case bearing FIR 177 dated 20.12.1997 registered under Sections 363, 366, 376, 344, 496, 506 and 34 Indian Penal Code of Police Station, Julkan, District Patiala. It has further been alleged that the petitioner was arrested and later on granted regular bail by this Court (vide order dated 13.5.1998). It has further been alleged that the bail bonds of the petitioner were accepted and attested by the lower court and the petitioner was released on bail and was appearing before the trial Court. It has further been alleged that subsequently, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court and he was arrested by the police and was produced before the trial Court in April, 2000 and was sent to judicial custody vide order dated 5.6.2000. It has further been alleged that since the petitioner was released on bail by this Court, the lower court could only cancel the bail bonds, but it could not cancel the order passed by this Court granting bail. It has been prayed that the Additional Sessions Judge be directed to accept the bail bonds of the petitioner and the order dated 6.6.2000 passed by him sending him to judicial custody be set aside.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.
3. During the course of arguments, it was submitted before me by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by this Court, the power to cancel the bail of the accused-petitioner was only with the High Court and that the trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge) could not cancel his bail, but he could only cancel the bonds. It was further submitted that the trial Court was duty bound to release the petitioner from custody, if the petitioner would furnish fresh bail bonds. Reliance was placed upon Bholai Mistry and another v. The State, 1977 Crl. Law Journal 492 (Calcutta), Gurcharan Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration), 1978 Crl. Law Journal 129 (Delhi) and Dandapani Rout and others v. State of Orissa, 1984(2) Crimes, 781 (Orissa).
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I find no merit in the submissions made before me by the learned counsel.
5. The accused-petitioner, Karnail Singh, was ordered to be released on bail by this court, in Criminal Misc. 7782-M of 1998, vide order dated 13.5.1998, in FIR 177 dated 20.12.1997 under Sections 363/364/34, Indian Penal Code (Section 376, Indian Penal Code, added) of Police Station Julkan, as per copy of order dated 13.5.1998 placed on the record as Annexure P1. The accused-petitioner, Karnail Singh, had submitted the bonds and was released on bail. During trial, he absented himself from the Court and accordingly, his bail was cancelled, the bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. In pursuance of the non-bailable warrants, the accused-petitioner, Karnail Singh, was arrested by the police and he was produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 6.6.2000, who directed that he be taken into custody and sent to Central Jail, Patiala, and be produced on 8.6.2000, the date already fixed in the case. Admittedly, the accused-petitioner had not moved any application for bail before the trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge). On the other hand, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, in this court, seeking direction to the Additional Sessions Judge to accept the bonds of the petitioner and to release him on bail, alleging that the order dated 6.6.2000 is unconstitutional and liable to be set aside.
6. In 1977 Crl. Law Journal 429 (supra), the accused-petitioners were granted anticipatory bail under Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code by the Calcutta High Court. When one of the accused
