Pankaj vs State of Haryana

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—This Court on 13.2.2012 had passed the following order:

The present petition has been filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case arising out of FIR No. 175 dated 2.6.2005, registered at Police Station Model Town, Panipat, u/s 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1986.

Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court. It is submitted that the petitioner was present in the Court on 28.2.2011 and wrongly, he noted the next date of hearing as 20.3.2012, in fact it was 20.3.2011. It is further submitted that due to non-appearance of the petitioner on the date fixed i.e. 20.3.2011, he was declared as a Proclaimed Offender. Learned counsel, to fortify this submission, has submitted that the other co-accused have also noted wrong date and therefore, their bail and surety bonds were also cancelled but they caused appearance before the trial Court.

At the outset, explanation furnished by the petitioner looks improbable. For not appearing before the trial Court, the petitioner has wasted valuable time and energy of the Court.

Looking into the nature of offence and the fact that on 20.3.2011, all the accused have absented, this Court will not eclipse personal liberty of the petitioner. However, for causing inconvenience to the Court, the petitioner can be saddled with the cost.

Issue notice of motion to the Advocate General, Haryana, for 5.3.2012.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on or before 24.2.2012. In the event of his appearance, he shall be released n interim bail subject to payment of costs of Rs. 20,000. The costs, so paid, shall be deposited in the office of the Haryana State Legal Services Authority at Chandigarh, so that the amount can be utilized for providing legal aid to the poorest of poor.

In compliance of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has appeared before the trial Court and has deposited the costs. The trial Court has released him on interim bail. Counsel for the State has not controverted the same.

For the reasons stated in order dated 13.2.2012 and the statement made by counsel for the parties, the present petition is accepted. Interim bail granted to the petitioner is made absolute, subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.