Amrit Singh Alias Amritjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab

Yashvir Singh Rathor. J

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of order dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case bearing FIR No.118 dated 12.09.2023 under Sections 307, 148, 149 of IPC, 1960 and under Sections 25-27-54-59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur, whereby the bail of petitioner was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants of arrest have been ordered to be issued against him.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the material on the file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was released on bail in the present case and had been appearing before the Trial Court regularly. On 21.05.2025, the petitioner, being in some personal difficulty, moved an application for exemption from personal appearance, which was allowed, and the case was adjourned to 19.07.2025. However, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was informed of the wrong date i.e. 19.08.2025. On 19.07.2025, he was informed by his counsel to appear before the Court, and on such a short notice, when he reached the Court at around 12:30 p.m. on the same day, he was informed by the Reader of the Court that his case had been adjourned to 20.09.2025. However, he later on came to know that his bail had been cancelled and bail bonds/surety bonds have been forfeited. Learned counsel contended that neither his absence was intentional nor did he ever intend to abscond or delay the trial. Learned counsel further contended that object of bail is not punitive but to ensure the presence of accused during the trial and his past conduct also establishes that he had no intention to disobey the process of law and he undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court. It has been prayed that impugned order be set aside.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and argued that petitioner absented and has hampered the trial and the impugned order is not liable to be quashed.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2765158, 2025:NCPHHC:106708 “Sahib Singh @ Saab Singh Vs. State of Punjab” has held that issuance of non-bailable warrants should not be exercised in a mechanical manner and must be adopted sparingly, only upon recording cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course. It has been further held that cancellation of bail amounts to unjustifiable restriction on procedural rights of petitioner in the absence of any misconduct or deliberate attempt to evade proceedings and petitioner-accused was directed to appear before the trial Court and to furnish an undertaking to appear on each and every date of hearing and was ordered to be released on bail. It was further held that object of bail is to secure appearance of accused at trial and deprivation of liberty must only be necessitated by extraordinary circumstances and courts should avoid punitive approach and adhere to procedural safeguards enshrined under the law. In holding so, reliance was placed upon 1978(1) SCC 118 “Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (UT of Delhi) and (2012) 1 SCC 40 “Sanjay Chander Vs. CBI”.

A perusal of the order dated 21.05.2025 shows that case was adjourned to 19.07.2025 for securing the presence of co-accused Anmol by issuing notice to him. On 19.07.2025, petitioner absented and his bail was cancelled and even on that date, an application for exemption was moved on behalf of the accused Rahul @ Ranjit Singh which was allowed. As such, the trial was not fixed for any substantive proceedings and fixed on 19.07.2025 for securing presence of all accused. In these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner had wilfully absented to hamper the trial. Rather, instead of cancelling the bail on account of his non-appearance, the Court ought to have issued notice to him with a direction to appear on the next date and the punitive order of cancellation of bail could thus have been avoided. On this account, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

As a result of aforesaid discussion, the present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 19.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) is set aside and it is ordered that petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court on his appearance before the said Court within 15 days from today. In case, he fails to appear within 15 days the benefit of bail granted by way of this order shall come to an end.