Read Order: Lakhwinder Kumar v. State of Punjab
Monika Rahar
Chandigarh, June 20, 2022: While dealing with an anticipatory bail plea wherein non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner, who was already granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail through an earlier order on account of being absent on one occasion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed the petition after noting that there was only a single date default.
The Bench of Justice Fateh Deep Singh observed, “Apparently, the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented and even his bail bonds have not been cancelled or forfeited to the State. Keeping in view that there is only a single date default impels this Court to allow the prayer made.”
In the instant case, the petitioner accused Lakhwinder Kumar was allowed anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the 2019 order of the High Court.
The petitioner was arrayed as an accused in an FIR registered under Sections 363/366-A/34 IPC (Section 120-B, 376 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 added later on).
However, during the trial of the case, the accused absented on one occasion in November 2021 as a consequence of which non-bailable warrants were issued against him by the trial Court.
It was in this situation, the present anticipatory bail came about.
After hearing the respective counsels of both the parties, the Court opined that apparently, the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court and it was only on one occasion he absented and even his bail bonds were not cancelled or forfeited to the State.
Thus, keeping in view the fact that there was only a single date default, the Court allowed the prayer.
Accordingly, petitioner was directed to put in appearance before the trial Court in a time bound manner and on his doing so, the Court directed his release on bail on old bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.