JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS of 2023 seeking for quashing of the order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) vide which the bail order (earlier extended in favour of the petitioner) has been cancelled on account of his non-appearance & accordingly the bail bonds/surety bonds stands forfeited.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had been earlier granted the concession of regular bail on 28.11.2018 and was regularly appearing before the trial Court. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was unable to appear before the trial Court on 04.11.2024 as also on 11.12.2024 as the clerk of his trial counsel had wrongly informed him of the next date of hearing in the trial. Learned counsel has iterated that the non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court was unintentional and bona fide, the petitioner is willing to enter appearance before the trial Court as also join proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Yuvraj Singh, AAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondent-State of Punjab. He has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before the trial Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid dates.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under:

"10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary surety ship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study