Judgment

Mr. Aman Chaudhary, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 19.7.2022 (Annexure P5), whereby the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued for 31.8.2022 in case DDR No. 51 dated 18.1.2021, registered under Sections 325 /323/34 IPC in FIR No. 212, dated 17.12.2020, under Sections 384 /506 IPC, registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, Jalandhar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the challan was presented in the Court of JMIC, Jalandhar, the petitioner was granted regular bail on his furnishing bail/ surety bonds of Rs.50,000/- vide order dated 9.3.2022, Annexure P4. While referring to para 6 of the petition, it is further submitted that in view of old age of the mother of the petitioner and she having undergone a heart surgery in the month of January, 2022 in Canada, he got his tickets booked for going to Canada on 20.6.2022 and took the flight on 24.6.2022 with the return date of tickets for 6.8.2022, Annexure P8. He further refers to para 8 of the petition to submit that though, the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the learned trial Court but mistook the date of hearing as 15.8.2022 instead of 15.7.2022, for which reason, he could not appear before the Court on the aforesaid date, due to which, vide order dated 19.7.2022 (Annexure P5) his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against him for 31.8.2022. At this stage, learned counsel further refers to order dated 9.3.2022, Annexure P4, granting regular bail to the petitioner, to submit that there were no conditions whatsoever imposed therein, more particularly with regard to his non leaving the country or seeking prior permission therefor, in view of the fact that offences against him were bailable. He further submits that in the Form No.45 i.e. Bail bonds, the sample of which was referred to from the Cr.P.C., wherein there is no mention of any condition in bailable offences that the accused has to take prior permission of Court to travel abroad. He further submits that there was no intention of the petitioner to evade the proceedings before the trial Court when he had gone abroad as the reason of his going abroad was the ill health of his mother and his absence from the proceedings on the date fixed i.e. 15.7.2022 was only on account of the mistaken belief of the date being 15.8.2022 instead of 15.7.2022 and none other. He further submits that in fact only keeping in view the next date of hearing as 15.8.2022, that the petitioner had accordingly booked his return tickets for 6.8.2022, however, on 19.7.2022 itself, non-bailable warrants came to be issued. He further contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to surrender before the trial Court and apply for bail, for which he prays for grant of only one opportunity, which may even be subject to imposition of costs or any other conditions, which this Court may deem appropriate to impose. In support of his submissions, he relies on Naveen Rao vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) ACB, Chandigarh, CRM-M-29461-2018, decided on 18.7.2018, Dimple Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2017(1) RCR (Crl.) 602 and Sonu Sharda vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-16648-2020 decided on 1.6.2020.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State as also the complainant appearing in person, submit that there was no cause for the petitioner to go abroad, in view of the averments made in para 6 of the petition as the surgery, if any, of the mother of the petitioner had already taken place in January, 2022, whereas the petitioner chose to go to Canada on 24.6.2022, thus, he had a lot of time at hand to take prior permission from the Court, there being no such urgency. They both submit that the averments made in paras 7 to 10 of the petition to the effect that the petitioner was not in contact with his counsel is not believable. Thus, the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. The complain