IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Crl. Misc. No. M-9888 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.04.2011 Umesh .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 24.3.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which warrant of arrest against the petitioner have been issued for his non-appearance on 24.3.2011 before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case being the friend of one Naresh, who had solemnised marriage with the daughter of the complainant. Petitioner was arrested on 22.8.2010 but subsequently, he was released on regular bail vide order dated 1.12.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been appearing regularly before the trial Court and he even did not file any application for exemption from personal appearance. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the prosecutrix while examining as PW1 did not support the case of the prosecution as she was declared hostile on 24.1.2011. Subsequently, an application was moved by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C for Crl. Misc. No. M-9888 of 2011 (O&M) -2- recalling the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 5.3.2011, the case was adjourned to 24.3.2011 for decision of the application moved by the complainant under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner belongs to District Aligarh and because of agitation by Jat Community over reservation issue, the petitioner could not reach to the Court well in time and because of the strike on that day, the bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled vide order dated 24.3.2011and forfeited to the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that because of the circumstances which were beyond the reach of the petitioner, he could not appear and only because of that reason, his bail bonds were cancelled and now the petitioner is ready to surrender before the Court and moreover, the case of the prosecution has not been supported by the prosecutrix as she has solemnised the marriage with one Naresh Kumar and it was a case of run-away marriage and complaint was filed by father of the prosecutrix. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the reason as mentioned above and also the fact that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the trial Court, in case the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court on the next date of hearing, i.e. 18.4.2011, he shall be released on bail by the trial Court on furnishing fresh bail bonds and surety bonds furnished to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Disposed of accordingly. April 06, 2011 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) renu JUDGE