Crl. Misc. No.M-12591 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-12591 of 2011 Date of Decision: 16.05.2011 Praveen Goel ..... Petitioner Versus Prem Goel ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Jasmeet Singh Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.(Oral) Petitioner is facing trial in a criminal complaint (Annexure P-1). Vide summoning order (Annexure P-2) petitioner was summoned to stand trial for offence under Sections 448/353/427/506 and 34 IPC. In the present petition, prayer has been made that impugned order whereby warrant of arrest was issued, for non-appearance be quashed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all offences, except offence under Section 353 IPC are bailable. It is further contended that the occurrence took place on 31.07.2003 and on that day, offence under Section 353 IPC was also bailable. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner-accused before the Summoning Court on various dates, warrants of arrest were issued. Crl. Misc. No.M-12591 of 2011 -2- This Court on April 27, 2011 had passed the following order:- “The Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, has dismissed the application of the petitioner for exemption of his personal appearance on the ground that he has availed numerous opportunities. It is further stated in the impugned order that on 30.10.2010, a warning was given to the accused that in case he failed to appear in the Court, his bail bonds would be cancelled, however, again on 11.03.2011, the accused remained absent and produced exemption application. The trial Court has been at pains to state that the accused has been availing unnecessary adjournments, evading his appearance and has made mockery of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner regrets conduct of the petitioner and submits that for unnecessary inconvenience caused to the Court, the petitioner is ready to pay the costs. He further submits that on the date when the order was passed, a certificate of back pain was issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, New Delhi and therefore, due to indisposition, the petitioner could not appear before the Court. The petitioner undertakes to appear in the trial Court on the next date fixed i.e. 28.04.2011. Issue notice of motion for 16.05.2011. In case the petitioner appears before the trial Court, he shall be released on interim bail, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-." Today, counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner had appeared before the trial Court and had deposited the costs and has been released on interim bail. Counsel for the complainant has stated that petitioner is not allowing the trial to proceed and on various dates he is not appearing and is continuously seeking exemption of personal appearance. Counsel has Crl. Misc. No.M-12591 of 2011 -3- further stated that in view of the conduct of the petitioner, he should be sent behind the bars. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that complainant had already been compensated in monetary terms. All offences except under Section 353 IPC are bailable. On the date of occurrence, even offence under Section 353 IPC was also bailable. It was later, Code of Criminal Procedure was amended and offence was made non-bailable. Petitioner may regularly appear before the trial Court. Since arrest warrants issued on 28.04.2011 stand complied with in view of the furnishing of bail bonds by the petitioner, effect of impugned order no longer survive. Petitioner shall continue to remain on bail. However, it shall not perclude trial Court to cancel the bail if petitioner fail to appear without any justifiable cause or misuse concession of bail. In view of the observations made above, no further directions are called for. Petition is disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 16.05.2011 JUDGE manju