Punjab and Haryana High Court raps trial court for contradictory orders

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, July 29

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually admonished a subordinate court for granting bail, and issuing fresh non-bailable warrant against an accused on the same day. Justice Arun Monga asserted the trial court “ought not to have ordered issuance of fresh non-bailable warrant”.

NBW should not have been issued

Advertisement

The trial court ought not to have ordered issuance of fresh non-bailable warrant after granting bail the same day. Justice Arun Monga

Justice Monga added it transpired that the court, on one hand, granted bail vide an order dated December 15, 2022. On the other hand, non-bailable warrant was issued the same day. The trial court should not have ordered the same as there was no occasion to do so by showing the petitioner absent. A compliance report/explanation by the Amritsar Judicial Magistrate First Class, dated January 20, was an indicator of the position.

Justice Monga was hearing a petition for quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated December 15, 2022, whereby fresh non-bailable warrant was issued in a case registered on December 21, 2020, under Sections 323, 235, 294, 201, and Section 34 of the IPC, dealing with obscene acts and songs and other offences, at a police station in Amritsar.

The court below initially cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner following his non-appearance. The bail and surety bonds in the form of FDRs were also forfeited and non-bailable warrant was issued. The trial court, subsequently, granted bail. The court, vide a separate order, ordered fresh non-bailable warrant.

Justice Monga, during the course of hearing, observed the Bench was prima facie of the opinion that the manner in which the proceedings before the court below were conducted left much to be desired. The petitioner, “a young man aged 24”, stated he was a qualified chartered accountant and struggling to get employed. His father, a co-accused, was a cancer patient.

He stated the police simply declined to receive an application containing their version about the incident in question. Besides this, the petitioner was taken in custody on December 15, 2022, and kept in confinement for three nights, despite interim protection by a co-ordinate Bench a day before.

Justice Monga asserted it appeared there was a violation “in letter, spirit and intent of this court’s order dated December 14, 2022”. Even the prosecution appeared to be “in serious dereliction of duty”. On one hand, the petitioner’s discharge application was pending. On the other, their emphasis was to have him sent in custody notwithstanding the interim protection.

Quashing the impugned order, Justice Monga asserted another Bench did not find merit in the petitioner’s claim for damages on the ground of illegally custody. Judicial proprietary did not permit a relook. At the same time, Justice Monga reduced the bail/surety bonds from Rs 1 lakh ordered on December 15, 2022, to the initially specified amount of Rs 30,000.