AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)
Petition under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC) seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 04.06.2026 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled, his bail/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State, and non-bailable warrants, along with notice to the surety, have been issued, in the case, the particulars whereof are set out hereunder:-
| DETAILS OF FIR | PARTICULARS |
FIR No. and Date FIR No. 35 dated 29.03.2022
Police Station Police Station City Jalalabad
District Fazilka
Sections Sections 379-B, 384, 389 and 120-B IPC
Corresponding Sections Sections 303, 308(2), 308(6) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023 under BNS, 2023
Case SC No. 174 of 2022
| Case Title | State of Punjab versus Mukhtiar Singh etc. |
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and no specific role or overt act is attributed to her in the FIR. She was neither named therein nor present at the alleged place of occurrence and was subsequently nominated on the basis of the statement of a co-accused. It has further been submitted that there is an unexplained delay of about six days in registration of the FIR and no transaction or receipt of any amount between the petitioner and the complainant is alleged.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 15.04.2024 and thereafter regularly appeared before the Trial Court from 07.08.2024 till 23.04.2026, without any allegation of misuse of the concession of bail. Her solitary absence on 04.06.2026 was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred on account of a bona fide miscommunication regarding the date of hearing and her medical circumstances. It is, thus, urged that such inadvertent absence, viewed in the backdrop of her consistent previous conduct, did not warrant cancellation of bail or issuance of non-bailable warrants. It has also been submitted that the co-accused are on bail and the matter is now fixed for 08.10.2026. Accordingly, learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.06.2026 and for restoration of the concession of bail to the petitioner, subject to such conditions as may be deemed appropriate.
Notice of motion.
Upon advance notice, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State of Punjab and, while controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner remained absent before the Trial Court on 04.06.2026 without sufficient cause, resulting in cancellation of bail, forfeiture of bail/surety bonds and issuance of non-bailable warrants. It is further submitted that the explanation furnished for such absence is an afterthought and does not constitute sufficient justification for interference with the impugned order. Learned State counsel, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and, with their able assistance, having minutely perused the paper book and the material available on record, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. The petitioner admittedly remained absent on the date fixed, and the Trial Court, upon consideration of the circumstances prevailing before it, proceeded to cancel the concession of bail and take consequential steps in accordance with law. The explanation now sought to be furnished by the petitioner does not disclose any such exceptional circumstance as may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.06.2026, whereby the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled, does not call for any interference. The present petition is, therefore, dismissed.
However, keeping in view the nature of the grievance raised, it is observed that the dismissal of the present petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing an appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The petitioner shall surrender before the Trial Court, i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, and shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application seeking regular bail, which shall be considered by the Court concerned in accordance with law and on its own merits.
In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or further orders are called for in respect of such applications, the same having been rendered infructuous in consequence of the present adjudication.