IN THE COURT OF LD.

DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE,

FARIDABAD DISTRICT COURTS.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. _____________ of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHISHEK SHEKHAWAT PETITIONER /

APPLICANT

VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT

INDEX

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. MEMO OF PARTIES
2. APPLICATION U/S 438 OF CR.P.C 1973 BY AND
ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT SEEKING
NECESSARY ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS FROM
THIS HON’BLE COURT THEREBY GRANTING
ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN THE FIR BEARING
NO. 130 DATED 21.03.2023 REGISTERED AT
POLICE STATION CENTRAL FARIDABAD U/S
174(A) IPC1860 PASSED BY THE COURT OF MS.
RICHU VIDE ORDER DT. 17.03.2023 IN WHICH
THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED WAS DECLARED
AS PO ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT.
In Complaint case titled as:
HDFC
VERSUS
Soorya 21
U/S 138 NI ACT.

3. APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION OF

CERTIFIED COPY OR ORDER DATED 17.03.2023
AND 13.06.2023 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT
4. ANNEXURE – “A”:
COPY OF THE ORDER DT 17.03.2023 AND THE
COPY OF THE FIR NO. 130
DT. 21.03.2023
5. ANNEXURE-B
THE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE
/SETTLEMENT ORDER DT 13.06.2023 B/W BOTH
THE PARTIES.
6. VAKALATNAMA

Date: …….. Petitioner/Appli-

cant
Through
Counsel
RAKESH KUMAR

1
 ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE,

FARIDABAD DISTRICT COURTS.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. _____________ of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHISHEK SHEKHAWAT PETITIONER /

APPLICANT

VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT

MEMO OF PARTIES

1. Abhishek Shekhawat
S/o Late Sh. Ashok Shekhawat
D-171, Sushant Lok -1
Gurugram PETITIONER /
APPLICANT

VERSUS
1. STATE OF HARYANA
RESPONDENT

Date: …….. Petitioner/Appli-

cant
Through

Counsel
RAKESH KUMAR
ADVOCATE

2
 IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE,
FARIDABAD DISTRICT COURTS.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. _____________ of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHISHEK SHEKHAWAT PETITIONER /

APPLICANT

VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT
FIR BEARING NO.: 130
DATED. 21.03.2023
POLICE STATION: Central Faridabad
U/S: 174(A) IPC 1860.

APPLICATION U/S 438 OF CR.P.C 1973 BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE

APPLICANT SEEKING NECESSARY ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS FROM
THIS HON’BLE COURT THEREBY GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO
THE PETITIONER/APPLICANT IN THE FIR BEARING NO. 130 DATED
21.03.2023 REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION CENTRAL FARIDABAD U/S
174(A) IPC1860 PASSED BY THE COURT OF Ms. RICHU VIDE ORDER DT.
17.03.2023 IN WHICH THE APPLICANT/ACCUSED WAS DECLARED AS PO
ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT.
In Complaint case titled as:

3
 HDFC

VERSUS

Soorya 21

U/S 138 NI ACT.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH;

1. That the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is being filed and preferred by the above named petitioner
seeking necessary orders and directions from this Hon’ble Session Court for grant
of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant thereby ordering and directing that
in the event of the arrest, the petitioner / applicant be released on bail. The facts of
the case make it abundantly clear that the petitioner is entitled for the protection
of anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Session Court. COPY OF THE ORDER DT.
17.03.2023 AND THE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 130 DT. 21.03.2023
REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION CENTRAL FARIDABAD U/S
174(A) IPC 1860 IS ANNEXED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE – 1.

Before coming to the main grounds of the bail, the applicant / petitioner herein
respectfully submits the brief facts of the matter for the kind consideration of this
Hon’ble court.

1. That the applicant/petitioner is accused in the complaint titled as HDFC Versus

Soorya 21 filed U/S 138 NI Act.

2. That the petitioner had settled the matter with complainant in case titled HDFC
Vs Soorya 21 vide order dated 13.06.2023 And the petitioner/accused person had
paid the part payment of the settled/agreed amount to the complainant and the
complainant had also agreed/received a part payment from the applicant/accused.
THE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE /SETTLEMENT ORDER IS AN-
NEXED AS ANNEXURE-B.

3. That therefore, the petitioner/Applicant has been rather constrained to approach

this Hon’ble Court by filing the present anticipatory seeking necessary orders and
direction from this Hon’ble Court thereby praying for the interim stay on the ar-
rest in the FIR NO. 130 DT. 21.03.2023 U/S 174(A) HAS BEEN LODGED BY
THE POLICE STATION Central FARIDABAD AGAINST THE PETI-
TIONER/APPLICANT.

GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE:

1. Because the allegations made in the complaint are so absurd and are
inherently so improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a
conclusion that the applicant herein has committed any offence as al-
leged in the complaint.
2. That the applicant was not aware of the above stated matters. The
summons was never served upon the petitioner/accused. That a
bald/unjustified order was passed by the trial court.
3. That the petitioner had never received any notices/summons from the
above said courts and he was not aware of the matters. And defi-
ciency of service of summons is not amounting to proper service.
4
 4. And if the petitioner has not received any summons, then, how come
the petitioner will have the knowledge and how he will appear before
the ld. Trial courts in the trial court.
5. The applicant is apprehensive that the police shall take him in cus-
tody and he will be harassed and humiliated despite having done no
illegality and false cases shall be fabricated against him.
6. Because it is submitted, the alleged complainant in the alleged com-
plaint intentionally and deliberately got initiated the 82 Cr.PC pro-
ceedings against the present petitioners on the wrong address of the
petitioner/accused inspite of having of knowledge of actual address.
7. That the petitioner was declared PO on 17.03.2023 and on the basis
of PO orders, the ld. Trial court sent the intimation to POLICE
STATION Central Faridabad to register false and illegal FIR
U/S 174 (A) against the petitioner.
8. Because the alleged PO process is patent illegality on the face of it,
while passing the PO order’s against the applicant/accused, the Trial
Court completely ignored the fact that mandatory provision of
process u/s 82 Cr.P.C had not been complied with and process server
deliberately executed the process of 82 Cr.PC on the wrong address.
9. Because 82 Cr.PC notice was not executed properly in terms of the
mandatory provisions of 82 Cr.P.C and further he had shown the ex-
ecution of 82 Cr.P.C notice in the absence of any witness. This
modus-of-operandi working of process server clearly demonstrates
that the execution process of 82 Cr.P.C was bogus.
10. That the service was done on the bogus address and there is no wit-
ness in support of the statement made by the constable who executed
the proceedings U/S 82 Cr.PC.
11. That as per law there should be a witness in regard to the proper ser-
vice of summons and PO proceedings.
12. Because it is pertinent to mention herein that despite the warrants re-
turned unexecuted and declaring the accused PO.
13. The process under sec. 80 Cr.PC not completed before sec. 82 Cr.PC
was started by the ld. Trial court.
14. That it is further submitted that the case filed before the ld. Trial
court is false and frivolous and without any merits. The petitioner
herein will be most adversely affected if he will not be given a
proper opportunity to context the matter on its legal and factual mer-
its.
15. Although the petitioner had settled the matter with the complainant
and paid him the part payment as mentioned in the settlement /com-
promise order.

The various Hon’ble High Courts including the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
has held that no person can be declared Proclaimed offender u/s 82 and 83 Cr.PC, if
that offence is not covered U/s 82 (4) Cr.PC. That as per the judgments of various
Hon’ble High Courts including the High Court of Punjab and Haryana clearly
states that if the matter has been settled b/w the parties then PO proceedings are
stayed and the anticipatory should be allowed in FIR registered u/s 174(A) Cr.PC.
To substantiate this fact, the petitioner is relying on the following judgments passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.

1. In the matter titled as POONAM VS STATE CIS 4185

CNR HRGR01-007955-2018:-
Anticipatory bail application was filed before the session
court of Gurgaon in the basis that the settlement has been
done with the respondent no.2/complainant. On the basis of
5
 the settlement the Hon’ble session court has allowed the
anticipatory to the petitioner with directions to join the in-
vestigation before the concerned IO.

2. Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurbinder Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors
on 13 March, 2015 CRM-M-34503 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-34503 of 2014
Date of Decision: March 13, 2015

Gurbinder Singh & others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab and Anr .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present: Mr. A.S.Gagrha, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G.,Punjab.

Mr.D.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Rajan Gupta, J (Oral) This is a petition under Sec-

tion 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of FIR No.130 dated
20.9.2014 registered under Sections
380/447/448/506/511 IPC at Police Station, B-Division,
Amritsar city and all the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom on the basis of compromise.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that during

the pendency of this petition a compromise has been ar-
rived at between the parties and dispute has been amic-
ably settled. Relying upon the judgment reported as Kul-
winder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3)
RCR (Crl) 1052, learned counsel submit that in view of
compromise, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the ratio

of judgment in Kulwinder Singh's case supra and submits
that in case a compromise is arrived at between the
parties the State would not stand in the way of quashing
of F.I.R.

Heard.

It appears that vide order dated 13.1.2015, trial

court was directed to record the statements of the parties
and intimate about the validity or otherwise of the com-
promise. A report has been received from the trial court.
Operative part thereof is as under:-

"Statement of complainant Paramjeet Singh S/o

Manjeet Singh on identification of his counsel, Vandana
Sharma W/o Gurbinder Singh, Gurbinder Singh S/o Di-
wan Singh, Bhaskar Kumar S/o Dinesh Kumar and Shray

6
 Kumar S/o Dinesh Kumar accused on identification of
their counsel were recorded. Complainant stated that he
has compromised with all the accused without any pres-
sure, threat or influence and also the accused Vandana
Sharma W/o Gurbinder Singh, Gurbinder Singh S/o Di-
wan Singh, Bhaskar Kumar S/o Dinesh Kumar and Shray
Kumar S/o Dinesh Kumar stated that they have com-
promised with the complainant without any pressure
threat or influence.
As per the report from concerned police station,
no PO proceedings are pending against any of the ac-
cused."

Compromise is in the interest of the parties and

after the matter has been resolved by an amicable settle-
ment, no useful purpose is likely to be served by continu-
ance of the criminal proceedings. In view of above, the
present FIR and the consequent proceedings arising
therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full Bench
judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh's case supra.

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The

F.I.R in question and the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed.

(Rajan Gupta) Judge March 13, 2015 BB

3. Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr
on 9 April, 2015
RELEVANT PARA:-

“The compromise is in the interest of the parties

and after the matter has been resolved by an amicable
settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served by
continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of
above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings
arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full
Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh's case
supra.

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The

F.I.R in question and the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed.

4. Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ashwani Kumar Kanda vs State Of Punjab
And Another on 23 May, 2016

Mr.Ankur Jain, AAG, Punjab Rajan Gupta, J

(Oral) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section
482Cr.P.C seeking quashing of F.I.R No. 37 dated
29.3.2014 registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 IPC at
Police Station, Goraya District, Jalandhar and all the sub-
sequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of
compromise.

7
 Learned counsel for the parties submit that during
the pendency of this petition a compromise has been ar-
rived at between the parties and dispute has been amic-
ably settled. Relying upon the judgment reported as Kul-
winder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3)
RCR (Crl.) 1052, learned counsel submit that in view of
compromise, the impugned F.I.R deserves to be quashed.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the ratio

of judgment in Kulwinder Singh's case supra and submit
that in case a compromise is arrived at between the
parties the State shall not stand in the way of 1 of
3 quashing of F.I.R.

Heard It appears that on 1.12.2015, a direction

was issued by this court to record the statements of the
parties with regard to validity or otherwise of the com-
promise. A report has been received from the trial court.
Operative part thereof reads thus:-

"Complainant Mukesh suffered a statement that

he is complainant in the present case. He has comprom-
ised with accused Ashwani Kumar. He stated that he has
seen the original compromise dated 8.6.2015. The copy
of compromise is Mark A. The compromise is voluntar-
ily and out of free will and pressure of any kind. He has
made the statement without any fear and pressure. All
the claims between accused Ashwani Kumar and him
have been settled and nothing is left between him and ac-
cused Ashwani Kumar. He stated that he has no objec-
tion if the present FIR is quashed. He produced copy of
his driving licence Ex.C1.

Accused Ashwani Kumar also suffered a state-

ment that he is accused in the present case. He has com-
promised with complainant. The compromise is voluntar-
ily and out of free will and pressure of any kind. He
stated that he has made statement without any fear and
pressure. All the claims between complainant and ac-
cused. He stated that he has no objection if the present
FIR quashed. The accused is not declared PO in the
present case.

In view of the statements recorded by the parties

this court is of the view that the compromise between the
parties is voluntary and 2 of 3 genuine and without any
pressure." The compromise is in the interest of the
parties and after the matter has been resolved by an am-
icable settlement, no useful purpose is likely to be served
by continuance of the criminal proceedings. In view of
above, the present FIR and the consequent proceedings
arising therefrom deserve to be quashed in light of Full
Bench judgment of this court in Kulwinder Singh's case
supra.

Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The

F.I.R in question and the subsequent proceedings arising
therefrom are quashed.

5. Karnataka High Court

8
 Manjunatha vs State By K R Pet Rural Po-
lice ... on 26 July, 2017

The petitioner apprehends his arrest by the re-

spondent/Police in their Crime No.143/2017 in respect of
the offences under Sections 307, 341, 114, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC.

The complainant is the wife of first petitioner. Pe-

titioners-2 to 4 are the parents and co-accused are their
relatives.

The allegation is, there was a Panchayat on

4.6.2017 to sort out the differences between the husband
and wife, however, parties were unable to reach any res-
olution. While the complainant along with her father was
proceeding on the motor bike, the accused waylaid the
motor bike and attempted to cause her murder by assault-
ing with a knife; in her effort to ward off the attack, the
complainant suffered injuries to her right hand.

There is a delay of 3 days in lodging the com-

plaint, which is not properly explained.

Sri.Jagadeesh C.M., learned Counsel for the peti-

tioners submits that the parties are married for 19 years,
both families are closely related and if anticipatory bail is
granted, sincere effort would be made to bring out settle-
ment in the matter.

In the light of the above, the petition is allowed.

Petitioners are granted anticipatory bail in Crime
No.143/2017 of respondent/Police, subject to the follow-
ing conditions:

(i) Petitioners-1, 3 and 4 shall appear be-

fore the respondent/Investigating Of-
ficer forthwith. In that event, I.O. is at
liberty to interrogate them.

(ii) In the event of their arrest, they shall be

released on bail on each of them ex-
ecuting a self-bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like
sum.

6. Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ajay Kumar vs State Of Haryana And
Another on 10 September, 2009

This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short, `the Cr.P.C.') for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case re-
gistered vide F.I.R.No.260 dated 17.4.2009 under Sec-
tions 406, 498-A, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal
Code,1860 at Police Station, City Karnal.

The petitioner is facing the allegations under the

aforementioned sections on the basis of a complaint
made by his wife - respondent no.2.

9
 Crl.Misc. Petition No. M-16171 of 2009 ....

On 10.6.2009 when the matter came up for con-

sideration before this Court, the parties were directed to
appear before Mediation and Conciliation Centre as there
appeared to be some chances of settlement. Simultan-
eously, interim protection was granted to the petitioner.

The efforts of the Mediator, however, could not

bring about any result and consequently, this Court is
now left with no option but to examine the case on mer-
its.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the peti-
tioner has since joined the investigation and he had
handed over the dowry articles to the investigating of-
ficer.

Learned counsel for the state, on the other hand,

has stated that some articles were given by the petitioner,
but the same were not collected by the complainant.

Learned counsel for the complainant has, how-

ever, submitted that there are serious allegations against
the petitioner and he does not deserve the concession of
anticipatory bail.

I have thoughtfully considered the rival conten-

tions. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was
granted interim protection on 10.6.2009 pursuant to
which he has joined the investigation and has also de-
livered some dowry articles to the police and also the
fact that no grievance has been made by the learned
counsel for the State regarding his non-cooperation with
the investigation and also noticing the fact that the dis-
pute essential arises from a marital discord, I deem it
proper Crl.Misc. Petition No. M-16171 of 2009 ....

to make the directions dated 10.6.2009 absolute

subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue
to comply with the provisions of Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C.

The petition is allowed & disposed of in the above terms.

7. Punjab-Haryana High Court

Palli @ Amritpal Singh vs State Of Punjab
on 13 August, 2015

CRM-25661-2015 Applicant seeks permission to

place on record the copy of compromise and affidavit
dated 07.08.2015 as Annexures P-6 and P-7.

Application is allowed, as prayed for. CRM

stands disposed of.

CRM-M-20803-2015 Petitioner seeks pre-arrest

bail in FIR No.29 dated 07.03.2015 under Sections
365, 366, 376, 511, 506, 120-B of Indian Penal Code

10
 ('IPC' for short), registered at Police Station Sadar, Dis-
trict Kapurthala.

Notice to Advocate General, Punjab.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. K.D. Sachdeva,

Addl. AG, Punjab accepts notice.

VISHNU 2015.08.13 17:16 I attest to the accur-

acy and integrity of this document High Court Chand-
igarh CRM-M-20803-2015 (O&M) -2-

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the complainant are ad idem that
parties have entered into an amicable settlement. Learned
counsel for the complainant submits that there was no al-
legation under Section 376 IPC. It was not so alleged
even in the FIR. Since the parties belong to the same vil-
lage, it was thought appropriate to settle it amicably. Re-
spectables of the village intervened and got the matter
settled. He further submits that he has got the instruc-
tions to say that the complainant would have no objec-
tion in case the anticipatory bail is granted to the peti-
tioner.

In view of the above, instant petition is allowed.

In the event of arrest, petitioner shall be released on anti-
cipatory bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating
officer subject to the conditions envisaged under Sec-
tions 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

Disposed of, accordingly.

8. Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sachin Bhatia & Anr vs State Of Haryana &
Anr on 28 January, 2015

Relevant para:-

“Therefore, it would be seen that since, the comprom-

ise is in the welfare and interest of the parties, so, there
is no impediment in translating their wishes into reality
and to quash the criminal prosecution to set the matter
at rest, to enable them to live in peace and to enjoy the
life and liberty in a dignified manner. Hence, to me, the
ratio of the law NARESH KUMAR 2011.03.05 14:23 I
attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Chandigarh laid down and the bench-mark set out by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's and
Narinder Singh's and others cases (supra), "mutatis
mutandis" is attracted to the facts of the present case
and is the complete answer to the problem in hand.
Likewise, the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1) and all
other consequent proceedings arising there from, de-
serve to be quashed in the obtaining circumstances of
the case.”

9. Punjab-Haryana High Court

11
 Saurabh Nayyar vs State of Haryana &
Anr on 4 September, 2015.

Prayer in this petition filed under Section

438 Cr.PC is for grant of anticipatory bail to the peti-
tioner in case FIR No.238 dated 3.6.2014 under Sec-
tions 406/498-A/ 120-B IPC, registered at Police Sta-
tion Sector 5, District Panchkula.

This Court vide order dated November 18, 2014

had stayed the arrest of the petitioner.

YAG DUTT

2015.09.07 12:01
I attest to the accuracy and integrity
of this document
Learned senior counsel for the peti-
tioner has submitted that no recovery is required to be ef-
fected from the petitioner and the dowry articles have
already been recovered as detailed in Annexure P-3. He
has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-
operate with the investigating agency and to keep his
wife and son with him. He has relied upon the judgments
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal)
45 titled as Preeti Gupta and another Versus State of
Jharkhand and another and 2014(3) RCR (Criminal) 527
titled as Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar and an-
other.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the com-

plainant has opposed the anticipatory bail on the ground
that the complainant has met with extreme cruelty and
harassment at the hands of the petitioner and his family
members. As regards recovery of dowry articles, he has
submitted that only partial recovery has been effected.
He has further submitted that in case the petitioner is al-
lowed the concession of anticipatory bail, there is possib-
ility that he may leave the country jeopardising the trial.
In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2014(3) RCR
(Criminal) 853 titled as Mayank Pathak Versus State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another and has submitted
that the present petition deserves to be rejected.

Learned counsel for the State joins with the argu-

ments of learned counsel for the complainant.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

As per the petitioner, all the dowry articles have

already been handed over to the complainant whereas the
only ground on which learned counsel for the complain-
ant and the State have opposed the grant of anticipatory
bail is that certain dowry articles are still to be recovered.
The matter was even referred to the Mediation and Con-
ciliation Centre of this Court but the parties could not ar-
rive at some amicable settlement.
12
 Without adverting to the merits of the case and
considering the fact that the dowry articles as referred in
Annexure P-3 have already been recovered and the pro-
ceedings under Section 438 Cr.PC are not the recovery
proceedings, as well as in view of the totality of the
above facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that
custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
As such, the present petition is allowed and the interim
relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated
18.11.2014 of this Court, is made absolute. However, the
petitioner shall join the investigation as and when direc-
ted by the investigating agency and shall abide by the
following terms and conditions as laid down under Sec-
tion 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(i) That he shall make himself available for inter-

rogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) That he shall not, directly or indirectly, make

any inducement, threat or promise to any person YAG
DUTT 2015.09.07 12:01 I attest to the accuracy and in-
tegrity of this document CRM-M-39227 of 2014 (O&M)
-4- acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any po-
lice officer; and,

(iii) That he shall not leave India without the pre-

vious permission of the Court.

It is made clear that the observations made here-

inabove shall not be construed as reflection of any opin-
ion on the merits of the main case and the trial Court
shall decide the case on the basis of availability of evid-
ence.

10. Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kawaljit Kaur and Another vs State Of Pun-
jab on 7 April, 2014

“At the very outset, on instructions from

HC Bhupinder Kaur, learned State Counsel has
acknowledged the factual matrix and submitted
that the petitioners have already joined the invest-
igation. They are no longer required for further
interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of
their previous involvement in any other criminal
case. Moreover, the Kumar Naresh 2014.04.11
16:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this
document Chandigarh petitioner No.2 has filed
his affidavit to the effect that out of the total
amount of `20 lacs he has already deposited an
amount of `14 lacs with the complainant Bank.
The matter has been compromised, in respect of
the remaining amount, with the Bank. In pursu-
ance thereof, the cheque bearing No.001480 dated
25.05.2014 of Rs.5 lacs has already been handed
over, whereas another cheque of the balance
amount would be given to the Bank.

13
 In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking
into consideration the totality of facts and circum-
stances, emanating from the record, as discussed
here-in-above, the instant petition for anticipatory
bail is accepted. The interim bail already granted
to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of order
dated 02.08.2013, is hereby made absolute, sub-
ject to the compliance of the conditions, as con-
templated under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.”

11. By the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in

Satinder Singh Versus The state of UT and Anr. 2011
(2) RCR Criminal 89, in which it is held that;
“in the present case, petitioner submitted that Mag-
istrate could not have declared petitioner as Proclaimed
offender as he was not accused of any of the offences
specified under Sub Section 4 of Section 82 of the Code
of Criminal procedure 1973 (Cr.PC) and as such he could
be declared proclaimed offender- So far as order declar-
ing petitioner otherwise as Proclaimed offender was con-
cerned, same was in contravention to Sub Section 4 Sec-
tion 82 of Cr.PC and thus quashed”

12. By the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in

Balbir Singh vs. Union territory of Chandigarh CRM
NO. M. 20943 of 2011 in which it is held that;

“While placing reliance on the judgment of Learned Singh

Judge of this Court in the case of Satinder Singh Vs State
of UT and another, has argued that accused can be declared
proclaimed offender if he is accused for the offences men-
tioned under Sub Section 4 of Section 82 Cr.PC”

13. By the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in

Sarabjit Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Another CRM
No. 17433 of 2011 in which it is held that;

“Learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Satin-

der Singh has held that Magistrate Could not declare ac-
cused as Proclaimed offender as she was not accused of any
offences specified under Sub Section (4) of Section 82
Cr.PC. In the present case also petitioner is not accused of
any offences specified under Sub Section (4) of Section 82
Cr.PC, therefore order impugned is bad in law”

14. By the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in “Alok Rajgarhia vs.

State, 2012(4)JCC 2564”, it is held that;

“Had the Investigating Officer made efforts he could have

traced the address of petitioner. No notices/summons had
been served on the petitioner at the earlier address since he
was not residing there, therefore, he could not respond to
such notices, since Learned Additional Standing Counsel
submits that the petitioner has now joined the investigations
and has also provided his new address. In these facts, pro-
ceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner
are quashed.

14
15. By the Hon’ble High Court in its judgment titled as San-
jay Chaturvedi Vs. State (Delhi) 2006 (3) JCC (NI)
241:
“Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – Sec. 138/141 – Cr.P.C.
1973 – Sec. 82/83 – Case. Under N.I. Act. – Petitioner was
summoned for 14th July, 2006 – Appeared through his
counsel – moved an application for exemption from his
personal appearance – Dismissed by ACMM – The learned
ACMM issued non-bailable warrants for 26th Aug. 2006 –
NBW’s could not be executed for 26th Aug. 2006 with the
report that the premises found locked and where about of
petitioner could not be traced – The learned ACMM issued
process under Secs. 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner and
similar co-accused persons- petitioner is challenging both
the orders dated 14 july, 2006, issuing non-bailable war-
rants as well as order dated 26th Aug, 2006, issuing process
under Secs. 82/83 Cr.P.C.- in view of the judgements [re-
ported in 2004(1) JCC308 and 2003 (3) JCC 1845] laying
down clear principles and procedure which is required to be
followed by the learned MMs and Courts of Sessions in
such cases, order dated 14.072006, issuing non-bailable
warrants against the petitioner, could not have been passed
- Not understandable why the process under section 82/83
was initiated when the petitioner was represented through
counsel and it is not a case where he is absconding and
evading the Court process”.

16. By the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in judgment titled as

“Court On Its Own Motion Vs. C.B.I. – 2004 JCC
308(Dl.)”, in which it is held that;
“Rejection of an application for exemption from personal
appearance on any date of hearing or even at first instance
does not amount to non-appearance despite service of sum-
mons or absconding or failure to obey summons and the
court in such a case shall not issue warrant of arrest and
may either give direction to the accused to appear or issue
process of summons”

17. That further as it is held by the Supreme Court of In -

dia in Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai
Patel in Appeal (civil) 2003 of 2008 that:
“The provisions contained in Section 82 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure were put on the statute
book for certain purpose. It was enacted to secure the pres-
ence of the accused. Once the said purpose is achieved, the
attachment shall be withdrawn. Even the property which
was attached, should be restored. The provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure do not warrant sale of the
property despite the fact that the absconding accused had
surrendered and obtained bail. Once he surrenders before
the Court and the Standing Warrants cancelled, he is no
longer an absconder. The purpose of attaching the property
comes to an end. It is to be released subject to the provi-
sions of the Code. Securing the attendance of an abscond-
ing accused, is a matter between the State and the accused.
15
 Complainant should not ordinarily derive any benefit there-
from. If the property is to be sold, it vests with the State
subject to any order passed under Section 85 of the Code. It
cannot be a subject matter of execution of a decree, far less
for executing the decree of a third party, who had no right,
title or interest thereon.”

18. Because applicant/accused to fortify his contention that

the impugned PO process of 82 Cr.P.C is illegal in law if
it has been executed on the wrong address rely upon the
Judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in “Radhey Sham Vs. State of Punjab” in
CM No. M-41647 dt. 3.10.08, which has held that;
“…Ld. Counsel has pointed out that not only
wrong address of the petitioner had been given, even the
court has noticed that as per report, no person was found
living at the given address…”

“…I find that not only attempt to serve the peti-

tioner was not made at the correct address of the peti-
tioner….. It was required to be recorded by the court that
the warrants cannot be executed and thereafter the court
could publish a written proclamation requiring the peti-
tioner to appear at a specific place and specific time. The
warrants not having been issued, the proceedings are ren-
dered illegal…”
20. Because it is further submitted that as per Section 82 (4)
Cr.PC, the present petitioner could not have been de-
clared as Proclaimed offender as petitioner was not ac-
cused of any of the offences specified under Sub Sec-
tion 4 of Section 82 of the Code of Criminal procedure
1973 (Cr.PC) and as such petitioner could not be de-
clared proclaimed offender. It is pertinent to mention
herein that only on this ground alone the order is liable
to be recalled/set aside. The various Hon’ble High
Courts including the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
has held that no person can be declared Proclaimed of-
fender u/s 82 and 83 Cr.PC, if that offence is not cov-
ered U/s 82 (4) Cr.PC.
21. Because the present complaints has been filed by the
complainant after manipulating / misrepresenting the
facts as nothing of the sort has happened and because
the complainant is high handed and has reach to the po-
lice officials. Hence the present complaint has been
given to harass the present petitioner/applicant and to
implicate him in the false matter.
22. Because the petitioner company was under OL and it
was not in the control of the petitioner/applicant.
23. Because the applicant / petitioner has a reasonable ap-
prehension to be arrested by the police at any time in
the present false case as he is being called for to visit
the police station and in case he is arrested he would be
harassed and humiliated unnecessarily without fault on
his part.
24. Because in this case, the impugned complaint and alle-
gations therein, are nothing but preemptive exercise and
16
 a self created defense on the part of the complainant be-
sides it has been manifestly attended with malafide and
the entire proceedings is malicious and has been initi-
ated with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner. The
entire allegation in the complaint of the complainant in
was an afterthought and was leveled just to prejudice
the rights and case of the petitioner.
25. Because the provision of the criminal law requires strict
interpretation and the liberty of a person cannot be
jeopardized on mere surmises or by traveling beyond
the specific provisions of the law.
26. That this Hon’ble court is having the jurisdiction to
grant transit anticipatory bail in respect of peti-
tioner, who is residing within the Jurisdiction of this
court and apprehends arrest even though the case
against the petitioner has been registered at a place
outside the jurisdiction of this court, ld. Counsel for
the petitioner counsel has relied upon a case re-
ported as “SUBHASH KAMBOJ VS STATE 1993
JCC87”.
27. Because it has been held in the case of “Daler Singh
vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2003 IVAD (Crl.)
DHC 428” by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi quoting
with approval the case of “Capt. Satish Kr. Sharma
vs. Delhi Administration (Delhi 1991 JCC 42”: “One
need not mix up the jurisdiction relating to cognizance
of an offence with that of granting of bails. Bails are
against arrest and detention. Therefore, an appropriate
court within whose jurisdiction the arrest takes place or
is apprehended or is contemplated will also have juris-
diction to grant bail to the person concerned.”
28. Because Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Pramod Ku-
mar Bajaj & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
2007 [4] JCC 2671, granted transit anticipatory bail to
the applicant for a period of three weeks and subject to
the applicant’s approaching the appropriate court at
Mumbai and applying for appropriate relief/bail.
29. That the matters pending in the Hon’ble Karnal
court are U/S 138 NI ACT which are Bailable
offence. The accused should be granted bail on
very first date of the appearance before the trial
court. Relevant judgements in support of the
above said facts are as follows:-

By the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in

“Alok Rajgarhia vs. State, 2012(4) JCC
2564”, it is held that;
Had the Investigating Officer made
efforts he could have traced the address of peti-
tioner. No notices/summons had been served on
the petitioner at the earlier address since he was
not residing there, therefore, he could not re-
spond to such notices, since learned Additional
Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has
now joined the investigations and has also

17
 provided his new address. In these facts, pro-
ceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. against
the petitioner are quashed.

30. By the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and

Haryana in Balbir Singh vs. Union territory
of Chandigarh CRM NO. M. 20943 of 2011
in which it is held that;
Since the petitioner is ready to ap-
pear before the Trial court on 21.1.12, therefore
present petition is disposed of with the direction
that the petitioner shall surrender/appear before
the trial court on 21.1.12. On his appearance, he
shall be released on bail on furnishing personal
bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of
Learned Magistrate.

31. That further as it is held by the Supreme

Court of India in Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel vs.
Vatslabeen Ashok bhai Patel in Appeal (civil)
2003 of 2008 that:
“The provisions contained in Section
82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were put
on the statute book for certain purpose. It was
enacted to secure the presence of the accused.
Once the said purpose is achieved, the attach-
ment shall be withdrawn. Even the property
which was attached should be restored. The pro-
visions of the Code of Criminal Procedure do
not warrant sale of the property despite the fact
that the absconding accused had surrendered
and obtained bail. Once he surrenders before the
Court and the Standing Warrants cancelled, he
is no longer an absconder. The purpose of at-
taching the property comes to an end. It is to be
released subject to the provisions of the Code.
Securing the attendance of an absconding ac-
cused is a matter between the State and the ac-
cused. Complainant should not ordinarily derive
any benefit therefrom. If the property is to be
sold, it vests with the State subject to any order
passed under Section 85 of the Code. It cannot
be a subject matter of execution of a decree, far
less for executing the decree of a third party,
which had no right, title or interest thereon.”

32. Because it is also a settled law the Court ought

to first decide the application for recalling of the
order of issuance of warrants and only thereafter
should direct the accused person to appear be-
fore it, but the Court ought not to first require
the presence of accused and then decide the ap-
plication for cancellation of NBW’s, as the same
has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in its judgment titled as Prem Cashew

18
 Industries & Ors. Vs. Zen Pareo – 2000 (2)
JCC (Delhi) 577 in Para 5 :
“However, now coming to the challenge to
the order dated 16.01.1999 learned Counsel
submits that the courts below ought to
have, in the first instance, disposed of the
application and only there after required the
presence of the accused if the need did then
arise. The Court ought not to have, accord-
ing to him, first required the presence or
the accused before dealing with the applic-
ation for cancellation of non bailable war-
rants and that Court having not decided the
application insisting upon the accused to be
present, has passed an order without apply-
ing its mind to the contentions raised in the
application for cancellation of non-bailable
warrants. There appears to be a great
deal of force in this argument. It is also
contended that the application that that has
been moved must first be decided before
the consequences thereon can visit the ac-
cused. In this view of the matter, I hold that
the order dated 16.01.1999 is bad and re-
mand the matter to the Metropolitan Magis-
trate to first consider the application for re-
call of the non-bailable warrants before
passing any other order”.
33. Because dismissal of application for cancella-
tion of Warrants vide Order dated 11.02.2013
is bad in eyes of law as it has been held by
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Prem
Cashew Industries & Ors. , 2000 (4) CCR
288 that
The court ought not to have, according
to him, first required the presence of the ac-
cused before dealing with the application for
cancellation of non-bailable warrants and that
court having not decided the application insist-
ing upon the accused to be present, has passed
an order without applying its mind to the con-
tentions raised in the application for cancella-
tion of non-bailable warrants.”

34. Because it is a settled law vides Order passed by the

Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in 1998CriLJ2412 that “It
empowers a Magistrate, whenever he issues a summons
to dispense with personal attendance of accused and
permit him to appear by a pleader. Term 'Pleader' is
defined in Section 2(q) of the Code. According to said
definition, 'Pleader' when used with reference to any
proceeding in any Court means a person authorized by
or under any law for the time being in force, to practice
in such Court and includes any other person appointed

19
 with permission of the Court to act in such proceeding.
Such appearance is the rule in criminal cases of a seri-
ous nature, involving moral turpitude, and punishable
with imprisonment for some length of time. Court
should consider the nature of aberration alleged, prima
facie material for acceptance of such allegation, possib-
ility of mala fide allegation, prejudice if any likely to be
caused if personal attendance is not made. Court has to
weigh inconvenience likely to be caused to accused if
he is required to be absent from his vocation, profes-
sion, trade, occupation and calling for attendance in
Court, against prejudice likely to be caused if he does
nor appear in Court. In my view, Court should normally
dispense with personal appearance when it concerns
with a Purdanashin woman, high placed public func-
tionary, a busy captain of an industry, and persons ren-
dering public service. It has not been shown before the
learned Magistrate or before me as to how any preju-
dice is likely to be caused if accused does not person-
ally appear. As Section 205 itself provides where Court
has allowed an accused to appear by a Pleader, at any
subsequent stage personal appearance of accused may
be ordered when it is deemed necessary or desirable. If
the learned Magistrate at any subsequent stage finds
that it is- so desirable, he may direct personal attend-
ance of the accused. The impugned orders suffer from
no infirmity and no interference is called for”.

35. Because it is decided in the case of Jayakrishna Das

v. State of Orissa (1988)1 OCR 628 that “discretion
should be exercised in favour of the accused persons
in appropriate cases”.

36. Because it was held in 2005(1)ALD(Cri)11 that, ” A

large number of cases are being filed in this Court seek-
ing cancellation of NBW issued either while rejecting
the application for exemption or for non-appearance of
the accused on one date of hearing even if Advocate for
the accused appears on his behalf. It is also observed
that the complaints under Section 138 of the Act are be-
ing filed against the companies in which all the direct-
ors are being arraigned as accused and their presence is
being insisted on every date of hearing and no proceed-
ings are being taken up in their absence. It is further ob-
served that the progress of the cases under Sec-
tion 138 impedes for want of their presence. The fact
remains as to why their presence is being insisted on
every date of hearing. The idea is to see that the pro-
gress of the case is not hindered for want of presence of
the accused or even the complainant for that matter”.
That it was mentioned above the petitioner is / was not
an absconder so the impugned order is bad in law as the
trial court while passing the impugned orders has com-
pletely ignored the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court, in - Court On Its Own Motion Vs. C.B.I. -
2004(1) JCC 308 (DHC) - issued directions for safe-
20
 guarding the constitutional guarantee in respect of per-
sonal liberty of a citizen. Also, the trial court while
passing the impugned order has ignored that the Non–
bailable arrest warrants could have been issued, upon
complying the requirements of Section 87 Cr.P.C., only
in eventualities when the accused has either been ab-
sconding or is / had not obeyed the summons or has re-
fused to appear despite proof of due service of sum-
mons on him. None of the above circumstances existed
in the present case, thus the impugned order is liable to
be quashed being contrary to law.

“That it is also a settled law the Court ought to first de-

cide the application for recalling of the order of issu-
ance of warrants and only thereafter should direct the
accused person to appear before it, but the Court ought
not to first require the presence of accused and then de-
cide the application for cancellation of NBW’s, as the
same has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in its judgment titled as Prem Cashew Industries & Ors.
Vs. Zen Pareo – 2000 (2) JCC (Delhi) 577 in Para 5:
“However, now
coming to the challenge to the order dated 16.01.1999
learned Counsel submits that the courts below ought to
have, in the first instance, disposed of the application
and only there after required the presence of the ac-
cused if the need did then arise. The Court ought not to
have, according to him, first required the presence or
the accused before dealing with the application for
cancellation of non bailable warrants and that Court
having not decided the application insisting upon the
accused to be present, has passed an order without ap-
plying its mind to the contentions raised in the applica-
tion for cancellation of non-bailable warrants. There
appears to be a great deal of force in this argument. It
is also contended that the application that that has been
moved must first be decided before the consequences
thereon can visit the accused. In this view of the mat-
ter, I hold that the order dated 16.01.1999 is bad and
remand the matter to the Metropolitan Magistrate to
first consider the application for recall of the non-bail-
able warrants before passing any other order”.

37. That has mentioned above, this Hon’ble Court has

pleased to issue NBWs against the applicant/ac-
cused which is contrary to the law held by the
Hon’ble High Court in its judgment titled as Sanjay
Chaturvedi Vs. State (Delhi) 2006 (3) JCC (NI) 241:
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 –
Sec. 138/141 – Cr.P.C. 1973 – Sec.
82/83 – Case. Under N.I. Act. – Peti-
tioner was summoned for 14th July,
2006 – Appeared through his counsel
– moved an application for exemp-
tion from his personal appearance –

21
Dismissed by ACMM – The learned
ACMM issued non-bailable warrants
for 26th Aug. 2006 – NBW’s could
not be executed for 26th Aug. 2006
with the report that the premises
found locked and where about of pe-
titioner could not be traced – The
learned ACMM issued process under
Secs. 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the peti-
tioner and similar co-accused per-
sons- petitioner is challenging both
the orders dated 14 july, 2006, issu-
ing non-bailable warrants as well as
order dated 26th Aug, 2006, issuing
process under Secs. 82/83 Cr.P.C.- in
view of the judgments [reported in
2004(1) JCC308 and 2003 (3) JCC
1845] laying down clear principles
and procedure which is required to
be followed by the learned MMs and
Courts of Sessions in such cases, or-
der dated 14.072006, issuing non-
bailable warrants against the peti-
tioner, could not have been passed -
Not understandable why the process
under section 82/83 was initiated
when the petitioner was represented
through counsel and it is not a case
where he is absconding and evading
the Court process”.
AND
It was similarly held in In-
der Mohan Goswami & Anr.
Versus State of Uttaranchal, SLP
(Cri.) 1392 / 2007 that:
“Before parting this appeal,
we would like to discuss an issue
which is of great public importance,
i.e., how and when warrants should
be issued by the court? It is come to
our notice that in many cases that
bailable and non-bailable warrant is
issued casually and mechanically. In
the instant case, the court without
property comprehending the nature
of controversy involved and without
exhausting the available remedies is-
sued non-bailable warrants.
The issuance of non-bailable
warrants involves interference with
personal liberty. Arrest and impris-
onment means deprivation of the
most precious right of an individual.
Issuing non-bailable warrants.

22
 As far as possible, if the court is of
the opinion that a summon will suf-
fice in getting the appearance of the
accused in the court, the summon or
the bailable warrants should be pre-
ferred. The warrants either bailable
or non-bailable should never be is-
sued without proper scrutiny of facts
and complete application of mind,
due to the extremely serious con-
sequences and ramifications which
ensue on issuance of warrants. The
court must very carefully examine
whether the Criminal Complaint or
FIR has not been filed with an ob-
lique motive.
38. In complaint cases, at the first instance the court
should direct the serving of summons along
with the copy of the complaint if the accused
seems to be avoiding the summons, the court, in
the second instance should issue bailable- war-
rant. In the third instance, when the court is
fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the
court, proceeding intentionally, the process of
issuance of non-bailable warrant should be re-
sorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, there-
fore, we caution courts at the first and second
instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable.
39. That the present matter of petition for setting-
aside/quashing of impugned order is the affair
between the State and the petitioner as Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in its judgment titled as -
Praveen Juneja Vs. State of Delhi & Anr.-118
(2005) DLT 28 - has held in its head-note of
the said judgment as –
“Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 82 –
Proclamation of Offender: These orders are only
with view to secure presence of petitioner: Peti-
tioner directed to appear before Trial Court and ob-
tain bail in accordance with law: Till then, im-
pugned order under Section 82, Cr.P.C. shall remain
stayed”.

40. That the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its judg-

ment titled as Veer Mahadev Singh Khalsa Vs.
State, through C.B.I - 2003(2)JCC 661 – has held
that
“Purpose of issuance of bailable warrants/non-
bailable warrant/proceedings U/s. 82/83 is to secure at-
tendance of the petitioner/accused on the date fixed, the
same would be served if the petitioner/accused appears
before the learned Trial Court on his own”.
And the same has been held by the Hon’ble
High Court in its judgment titled as - Praveen Jun-
eja vs. State of Delhi & Anr.-118 (2005) DLT 28.

23
41. That the offences alleged to be committed by the peti-
tioner/accused, for which the petitioner has to face the
trial for more than 6 Years are Bailable and having a
maximum punishment of TWO Years or with Fine or
Both. As the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held in
its judgment titled as - Puneet Singh Chauhan & Anr.
State & Anr. – 2003(3) JCC 1485-
“In a Bailable Offence, the courts of Metropolitan Ma-
gistrates and Session Judges issuing the process of war-
rant of arrest u/s 89 Cr.P.C. for procuring the appear-
ance of the accused shall either on appearance by the
accused on his own or on his production by the police
in execution of warrants of arrest shall release the ac-
cused on his furnishing bond with or without sureties”.
Thus, the petitioner should not be put behind the bars.

42. That it is further stated by the Hon’ble High Court

of Punjab and Haryana in Satinder Singh Versus
The state of UT and Anr 2011 (2) RCR Criminal 89,
in which it is held that;
“in the present case, petitioner submitted that
Magistrate could not have declared petitioner as Pro-
claimed offender as he was not accused of any of the
offences specified under Sub Section 4 of Section 82 of
the Code of Criminal procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C) and as
such he could be declared proclaimed offender- So far
as order declaring petitioner otherwise as Proclaimed
offender was concerned, same was in contravention to
Sub Section 4 Section 82 of Cr.P.C and thus quashed”.

43. That it is further stated by the Hon’ble High Court

of Punjab and Haryana in Sarabjit Kaur Vs. State
of Punjab and Another CRM No. 17433 of 2011 in
which it is held that;
“Learned Single Judge of this Court
in the matter of Satinder Singh has held that Magistrate
Could not declare accused as Proclaimed offender as
she was not accused of any offences specified under
Sub Section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. In the present
case also petitioner is not accused of any offences spe-
cified under Sub Section (4) of Section 82 Cr.P.C,
therefore order impugned is bad in law”.

1. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interfer-

ence with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonment
means deprivation of the most precious right of an indi-
vidual. Therefore, the courts have to be extremely care-
ful before issuing non-bailable warrants.
Just as liberty is precious for an individual so is
the interest of the society in maintaining law and order.
Both are extremely important for the survival of a civil-
ized society. Sometimes in the larger interest of the
Public and the State it becomes absolutely imperative to
curtail freedom of an individual for a certain period,
only then the non-bailable warrants should be issued.
24
 When non-bailable warrants should be issued

Non-bailable warrant should be issued to bring a

person to court when summons of bailable warrants
would be unlikely to have the desired result. This could
be when:

• It is reasonable to believe that the person will not vol-

untarily appear in court; or

• The police authorities are unable to find the person to

serve him with a summon; or

• It is considered that the person could harm someone if

not placed into custody immediately.

As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that

a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the
accused in the court, the summon or the bailable war-
rants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable
or non-bailable should never be issued without proper
scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due
to the extremely serious consequences and ramifica-
tions which ensue on issuance of warrants.
In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court
should direct serving of the summons along with the copy
of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the
summons, the court, in the second instance should issue
bailable warrant. In the third instance, when the court is
fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the court's pro-
ceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-
bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is
paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and sec-
ond instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants.
The power being discretionary must be exercised
judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court
should properly balance both personal liberty and societal
interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any
straight-jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a
general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commis-
sion of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he
is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to
evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants
should be avoided.
The Court should try to maintain proper balance be-
tween individual liberty and the interest of the public and
the State while issuing non-bailable warrant.
On consideration of the totality of facts and circum-
stances of this case, the impugned judgment and order of
the High Court cannot be sustained.
That the petitioner/accused was not given a fair
chance of hearing before issuing the non-bailable warrant
and the application for exemption was dismissed on the
surmises and conjuncture. That the Ld. Trial Court with
prejudiced mind held that the petitioner is intentionally de-
laying the proceeding. That the Ld. Trial Court failed to ap-
preciate that the petitioner was represented by the counsel.
That the proceedings u/s 138 NI Act, do not fall under the
25
category of heinous crime but rather the proceeding u/s 138
NI Act are Quassi Civil in nature. It is also a fact on record
that the company is undergoing a bad phase which requires
extra efforts by the petitioner and he is making efforts to re-
vive the company. That the presence of accused on each
and every date of hearing without any role of the accused in
the proceedings is not required and the proceedings can be
continued even in absence of the petitioner and calling for
the petitioner on each and every date of hearing is contrary
to the law laid down by the Apex Court in umpteen number
of Judgment and namely and Aneeta Handa Case and
Bhaskar Industries Case.
That the Courts are issuing non-bailable warrants at
the first instant of non appearance by the accused even
though he is appearing through counsel on every date of
hearing.
That it is a matter of normal/general practice of the
Courts in India that when exemption is sought on the
ground that the order sheet of the ld. Trail court of Pataudi
court will be placed on record in which accused person ap-
peared and an opportunity of fair hearing to the Petitioner
before any coercive orders are passed. The order passed by
the Ld. Trial Court is hereby putting a restrain on the right
of the Petitioner, which is contrary to the law passed by
Apex Court in umpteen cases. In the present facts and cir-
cumstances the Ld. Trial Court for the reasons best known
to it and with a prejudiced mind dismissed the application
calling it to be frivolous.
That the Ld. Trial Court with a prejudiced mind
and without any evidence on record has come to the con-
clusion that the Petitioner has been served with the sum-
mons and is intentionally not appearing before the Court.
That there have been several instances wherein false reports
have been filed before the Ld. Courts and the Ld. Court
without examining the serving staff has arrived at the con-
clusion that the accused are avoiding service.
Because the petitioner is made an accused in the
present case, for being director of the accused company and
is vicariously liable, that the petitioner carries on business
being director of the company is entitled to permanent ex-
emption and the exemptions is to be liberally granted as per
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of Various
Hon'ble High Courts.

44. Because there is no likelihood of the petitioner of

jumping the bail. The petitioner undertakes to abide by
the conditions imposed by Hon’ble Session court.
45. Because there are no grounds which disentitle the peti-
tioner from the grant of relief sought.
46. That the petitioner crave the leave of this Hon’ble Court
to plea and urge any other further ground which may be
taken by the petitioner during the course of arguments
on the present petition/application.

26
 47. That the applicant has not filed any other application or
petition for the same relief seeking in the present appli-
cation either before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of In-
dia, this Hon’ble Court, or any other Court.
48. That the applicant has no other alternative officious
remedy except for filing of the present petition/applica-
tion before this Hon’ble Court.
49. That the annexures filed along with present bail appli-
cation are true, copies of their originals.
50. That the present application for Anticipatory Bail has
been filed in most bonafide proper and legal manner
and as advised under law. The Anticipatory Bail appli-
cation is maintainable under law.
51. That the applicant is also ready to appear before the IO
and furnish the surety bonds as per the satisfaction of
IO and is also ready to join the investigation before
concerned IO.
52. That the applicant has not filed any other bail seeking
relief in the present complaint.
53. That the applicant has no other alternative officious
remedy except for filing of the present anticipatory be-
fore this Hon’ble Court.
54. That the present application for Anticipatory Bail has
been filed in most bonafide proper and legal manner
and as advised under law. The Anticipatory Bail appli-
cation is maintainable under law.

P R AY E R:

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. KINDLY ALLOW THE PRESENT APPLICATION U/S 438 OF CR.P.C 1973

BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT SEEKING NECESSARY
ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS FROM THIS HON’BLE COURT THEREBY
GRANTING ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
APPLICANT/ACCUSED/PETITIONER AND CANCELED /QUASHED THE
FALSE AND ILLEGAL FIR BEARING NO 130 DATED 21.03.2023
REGISTERED AT POLICE STATION Central Faridabad, U/S 174(A) IPC
1860.

IN COMPLAINT CASE TITLED AS:

HDFC

VERSUS

Soorya 21

U/S 138 NI ACT.

2. PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS THEREBY ORDERING

AND DIRECTING THAT IN THE EVENT OF ARREST OF THE APPLICANT
AND THE APPLICANT CAN BE RELEASED ON BAIL ON THE TERMS
AND CONDITION IMPOSED BY THIS HON’BLE SESSION COURT.

27
 3. PASS ANY ORDER AND DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE.

Date: …….. Petitioner/Appli-

cant
Abhishek Shekhawat S/o
Late Sh. Ashok Shekhawat
D-171, Sushant Lok -1,
Gurugram

Through

Counsel

RAKESH KUMAR
ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE,

FARIDABAD DISTRICT COURTS.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. _____________ of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHISHEK SHEKHAWAT PETITIONER /

APPLICANT

VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT

FIR BEARING NO.: 130

DATED. 21.03.2023
POLICE STATION: Central Faridabad,
U/S: 174(A) IPC 1860.

Affidavit of Abhishek Shekhawat S/o Late Sh. Ashok Shekhawat D-171, Sushant Lok -1,
Gurugram

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the petitioner is filing the accompanied with the anticipatory bail u/s 438 of
Cr.P.C in this Hon’ble Court which may kindly be read as a part of this application.

28
 Dated: Deponent

Verification:-

I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of my above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge; no part of it is false and nothing has been
concealed therein.

Dated: Deponent

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE,

FARIDABAD DISTRICT COURTS.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. _____________ of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHISHEK SHEKHAWAT PETITIONER /

APPLICANT

VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT

FIR BEARING NO.: 130

DATED. 21.03.2023
POLICE STATION: Central Faridabad,
U/S: 174(A) IPC 1860.

APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION OF FILING CERTIFIED COPY

OF ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 AND 13.06.2023

29
 The applicant prayers as under:-

1. That the applicant is filing the present anticipatory bail before the Hon’ble Court.

2. That the applicant prays before this Hon’ble Court for exempting to file the Certi-

fied copy of the order dated 17.03.2023 and 13.06.2023.

3. That the applicant filed a electrical generated copy of order dated 17.03.2023 and

13.06.2023

4. That the applicant has not done so intentionally and prays leave before this Hon’ble

Court.

It is respectfully prayed that the above said application may kindly be

allowed in the interest of justice.

Date:
Petitioner/Appli-
cant
Abhishek Shekhawat S/o
Late Sh. Ashok Shekhawat
D-171, Sushant Lok -1,
Gurugram

Through

Counsel

RAKESH KUMAR
ADVOCATE

IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE,

FARIDABAD DISTRICT COURTS.

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. _____________ of 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

ABHISHEK SHEKHAWAT PETITIONER /

APPLICANT

VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENT

FIR BEARING NO.: 130

DATED. 21.03.2023
POLICE STATION: Central Faridabad,
30
 U/S: 174(A) IPC 1860.

Affidavit of Abhishek Shekhawat S/o Late Sh. Ashok Shekhawat D-171, Sushant Lok -1,
Gurugram

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:-

1. That the petitioner is filing the accompanied with the application for exemption of
certified copy or order dated 17.03.2023 and 13.06.2023 in this Hon’ble Court which
may kindly be read as a part of this application.

Dated: Deponent

Verification:-

I, the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of my above
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge; no part of it is false and nothing has been
concealed therein.

Dated: Deponent

31