Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Satnam Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-9805-2021
Decided on : 30-04-2021
Bail - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Absence of Accused - Speedy Conclusion of Trial
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner was previously granted bail but absented himself and was declared a proclaimed offender. He was later arrested.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner on the basis of the offer made by the petitioner to deposit Rs. One lakh as surety before the trial Court, subject to the outcome of the trial. The amount would be kept in an FDR of a nationalized bank and forfeited if the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court.
Issues: The main issue was the intentional absence of the petitioner and the opposition by the State counsel based on the petitioner's involvement in multiple cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the machinery provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure the presence of the accused for a speedy conclusion of the trial. The offer made by the petitioner to deposit a surety was considered as a means to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial.
Final Decision: The petition seeking regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail subject to the condition of depositing Rs. One lakh as surety before the trial Court, with the amount being subject to the outcome of the trial and forfeited if the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
2. This is a petition seeking regular bail in case FIR No.0043 dated 01.03.2016 registered under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Samrala, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana.
3. The petitioner was granted bail on 05.04.2017. The petitioner absented himself and was declared as a proclaimed offender on 28.01.2019. Thereafter, he was arrested on 04.11.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner was not intentional. He submits that the petitioner was in custody in an another FIR at Samrala. However, to prove the bona fide, the petitioner offers Rupees one lakh as surety by way of cash deposit before the trial Court subject to outcome of the trial.
5. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sikander Raj, opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is involved in seven cases. She further submits that the absence of the petitioner was intentional just to delay the trial.
6. The machinery provisions provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure are to ensure the presence of the accused as and when required during the trial. The idea behind is that there should be speedy conclusion of the trial. The offer made by the petitioner, if accepted, ensures the presence of the accused during the trial.
7. Considering the facts and totality and the offer made by the petitioner, the petitioner is granted bail subject to his depositing Rs. One lakh, in cash, before the trial Court. The amount deposited would be subject to outcome of the trial. The amount will be kept in an FDR of a nationalized bank.
8. In case, the petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court as and when called for, the amount so deposited shall be forfeited.
9. The petition is allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
