The court applied a balanced approach and considered the maximum sentence imposable for the offenses, as well as the directions in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and the pragmatic approach in Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - Criminal Complaint No. 6348 dated 22.11.2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, District Amritsar The petitioner apprehending arrest due to issuance of non bailable warrants, in the complaint captioned above has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that all the offences are bailable.

3. The contention on behalf of the State is that given the judicial pronouncements, anticipatory bail cannot be granted once non-bailable warrants have been issued.

REASONING:

4. The petitioner is a first offender.

5. The explanation offered by the petitioner is mentioned in paragraphs of the petition, which are extracted as follows:

'That since the year 2018, the petitioner is appearing in the trial court and pursuing litigation and engaged his counsel to defend the same. Some time the petitioner could not appear due to his work thus he moved an application for exemption from his personnel appearance. The petitioner could not appear on 08.03.2021 though he has intimated his counsel for his non appearance.

Thereafter, the counsel intimated the petitioner that due to Covid-19, still there is no need to appear as the clients are not allowed to enter the courts and it was. further intimated that as and when the needs arises, he will intimated accordingly, the petitioner was intimated that the date for his appearance is now 19.12.2021. On 19.12.2021 when the petitioner contacted his counsel in his chamber and asked him the date then it came to his notice that infact date was 19.10.2021 instead of 19.12.2021. Due to wrong impression the petitioner could not appear on the date fixed and thus his bail bond and surety bond have been cancelled. The copy of the order dated 19.10.2021 is annexed as annexure P-2.'

6. The petitioner explains that the non-appearance was due to miscommunication.

There is nothing to disbelieve his version.

7. A balanced approach would work as an incentive, a catalyst, speeding up the process, and bringing the guilty to Justice and Justice to the guilty.

8. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

9. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for anticipatory bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.

10. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, this Court observed, [53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the 'Court' and the 'Arresting Officer' should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer.

11. Given above, In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the case mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), and furnishing one surety for Rs. Twenty-Five thousand only (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigator. Before accepting the sureties, the concerned officer must satisfy that if the