CRM-M-27172-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Mere issuance of NBWs for securing presence of accused in bailable case would not render substantive offence non-bailable, rules P&H High Court Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj [22-06-2022]

feature-top

Read Order: Manmohan Arora v. State of Punjab and Another

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, June 30, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, while dealing with an application for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused in response to the issuance of non-bailable warrants (NBWs) against him in a cheque bounce case, has held that mere issuance of non-bailable warrants for securing the presence of the accused in a bailable case would not render the substantive offence non-bailable.

Justice Vinod S. Bhardwajhas instead held that the correct course of action for such an accused should be to submit himself to the Court and apply for regular bail and also to move an application under Section 70(2) of the CrPC for staying execution of the warrants so issued against him.

In this case, a petition under Section 438 CrPC was filed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner against whom a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amritsar.

The Counsel for the petitioner justified the filing of the instant petition during the pendency of a cheque bounce complaint against his client while contending that non-bailable warrants were issued for securing the petitioner’s presence.

Addressing this contention and the entire case at hand, the Court observed at the very outset that the issuance of non-bailable warrants for securing the petitioner’s presence would not ipso facto give a cause of action to the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 438 CrPC as the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is bailable offence and the mere issuance of non-bailable warrants for securing the presence of the accused in a bailable case would not render the substantive offence non-bailable.

Instead, Justice Bhardwaj asserted that it would be expedient that in such circumstances the accused whose presence is sought from coercive steps submits himself to the Court and apply for regular bail and also to move an application under Section 70(2) of the CrPC for staying execution of the warrants so issued against him.

Faced with the above, the counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to move an appropriate application before the competent Court.

Thus, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.

Add a Comment