Haroon vs State of Haryana

M.L. Koul, J.

The petitioner Haroon, facing trial for an offence under Sections 302/201 IPC being on bail, was not able to appear before the trial Court i.e. the learned Sessions Judge on 9.10.1995 as he appeared on that date before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh, in FIR No. 150, of 13.8.1994 under Sections 25/30/54/59 of the Arms Act. As the witnesses were returned, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was satisfied to form an opinion that the accused intentionally absented himself from the court on the relevant date in order to avoid the recording of statements of the eye witnesses. Hence, the bail granted to him was rejected, as a result of which the accused was arrested and is facing trial in custody.

Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the accusedpetitioner argued that it was not the wilful or intentional absence of the accused to see that prosecution witnesses were not recorded by the trial Judge rather he was present in some other court where he was facing criminal charge for some other offence as mentioned above. In this regard annexure P1 is the positive proof showing that the accused was present before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh, on 9.10.1995 and the case was adjourned to 15.11.1995 for consideration of charge. This shows that the petitioner was absent for a reasonable canse as he had to attend the other court. He could not simultaneously attend the two courts on one date when the two courts are situated at two different stations. There was no intention on the part of the petitioner to remain absent on that date and no proof is available on the file that the petitioner was knowing earlier that the eye witnesses would be present on the date fixed.

Once the concession of bail has been granted to the accused by the trial court, it could not reject his bail once he failed to cause his appearance on one date before the court. The trial court should have given a notice to him to show cause why the bail granted to him is not cancelled. At random the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail of the accused, when there was bona fide proof available with him that he attended another court on that date and thus was not wilfully absent. Hence, the petitioner is given fresh bail in the amount of Rs. 30,000/ with one surety and personal recognition bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.