Read Order: Rishi Pal v. State of Punjab
Chandigarh, June 23, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the petition filed for the grant of regular bail to an accused whose default bail was cancelled on account of his unexplained absence from the Trial for a period of two years, after which he was arrested.
The Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri added that the petitioner was a resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh and therefore the apprehension of the State surrounding the possibility of the accused absconding could not be termed to be unjustified.
The instant petition was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in an FIR registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 & 120-B of the IPC.
The facts, as reflected from the case advantage by the petitioner’s counsel are such that the petitioner was granted bail by the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate, which was a default bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. and he was ordered to be released on furnishing bail bonds in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount.
Thereafter, on February 20, 2019, he was absent without any intimation and therefore, his bail was cancelled and his bail bonds and surety bonds were also forfeited to the State. The petitioner was arrested on June 29, 2021 and since then he has been in custody, therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner prayed for the grant of regular bail to him.
On the other hand, the State Counsel stated that the petitioner absented himself from the Court for a long period which was more than 2 years and there was no justification for the same and eventually he was arrested.
He further submitted that the petitioner belonged to Uttar Pradesh and considering the fact that earlier he jumped the bail and remained absconded for more than two years, thus there was every likelihood that he may again abscond in case he was released on bail.
At the very outset, the Court considered the fact that the petitioner, on being released on default bail, absented himself from the Trial, leading to the cancellation of his bail. It was also noted that the petitioner, a resident of UP, did not surrender himself and thus, had to be arrested.
On a pointed query of the Court, the petitioner sought to justify his absence owing to an accident and his health, but the Court noted that the Counsel for the petitioner did not produce any document or record on the basis of which such justification was made by the counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid position, the Court opined that since the petitioner jumped the bail without any justification and he remained absent for more than two years and eventually he was arrested, therefore, the State Counsel’s submission to the effect that there was every apprehension that he might again abscond, could not be ignored.
Consequently, finding no merit in the present petition, the same was dismissed.