JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the order dated 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tosham, whereby after cancelling the bail of the petitioner, non-bailable warrants have been issued against him, on account of his non-appearance in the following FIR:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after getting released on regular bail on 26.05.2023, by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, he was regularly attending the Court proceedings and never remained absent, except, on 05.01.2024.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the last week of December, 2023, petitioner had gone to his native village at District Pumia, Bihar and fell ill, and this is because, he was not able to travel back to Bhiwani and could not convey about this to his counsel. Due to the said reason, he could not appear before the trial Court on 05.01.2024, and bail of the petitioner was ordered to be cancelled, and bonds were forfeited, and arrest warrants of the petitioner had been issued for 03.04.2024.

Thereafter, petitioner was arrested in FIR No.131 dated 25.03.2024 and confined in Central Jail Pumia, Bihar, from where he was released on 15.05.2024. As the bail granted to the petitioner was already cancelled vide order dated 05.01.2024, petitioner filed petition for grant of anticipatory bail which was declined, vide order dated 12.11.2024.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the matter between the parties has been mutually settled and the complainant is not interested to pursue the present FIR and has executed affidavit/compromise dated 09.05.2023 in that regard. Thus, submits that absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, but he defaulted due to the reasons, mentioned here-above.

4. Learned Counsel further submits that now petitioner is ready to join the process of law, however, he be directed to be released on bail, on his surrendering before the Court and thus, be protected from arrest. In case, one opportunity is granted, petitioner also undertakes that he would not absent himself in future, without there being prior permission from the Court, and fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel as well as Mr. Hamanak Singh, Advocate, put an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he has misused the concession of bail granted by the Court. Learned State counsel by pointing out the irresponsible conduct of the petitioner, submits that there is every possibility that for the purpose of delaying the trial, he would again be absenting during the proceedings.

7. In number of cases, this Court has been experiencing the situation wherein, accused stopped appearing before trial Court in the criminal cases after being released on bail and thereby compelling the Court to issue non-bailable warrants by cancelling the bail already granted or such accused has been declared 'Proclaimed Person'/Proclaimed Offender'. After examining the facts from several cases, this Court has formulated and applied a uniform method by satisfying itself that such accused would appear before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further, instead of delaying the proceedings to await the presence of accused.

Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case in which he is involved, and where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentional to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalized after examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay.

Primary object of every