Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1570 (PNJ)

Shyam Sunder Sharda v. Ashok Kumar

2019-05-15

MANOJ BAJAJ

body2019
JUDGMENT Mr. Manoj Bajaj, J. (Oral):- Petitioners-accused have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to the respective trial Courts for permitting the petitioners No.1 and 2 to furnish one personal bond and surety bond in all complete cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are accused in 36 cases and the details of the same is given in para 3 of the petition, brought by different complainants, who are respondents herein i.e. respondents No.1 to 44. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it would be difficult for the petitioners to furnish surety in each and every case separately and prayer has been made for allowing the petitioners to furnish one common surety. During the course of arguments, it is conceded that the petitioners are yet to appear in majority of the cases, which are split in different Courts at Fazilka. It is also contended that the application for consolidation of all the complaint cases stands moved and the same is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners this Court finds that prayer made before this Court is premature as the petitioners are yet to appear before the Courts and to apply for bail. The present petition is being filed in anticipation of refusal of the prayer by the trial Court. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Ravinder Pal Singh vs. State, 1993(2) CCR 1116 . The said judgment is distinguishable as the High Court had proceeded to club the three offences in terms of Section 219 Cr.P.C. and ordered that the accused be charged and tried at one trial. At the same time, it was directed that instead of three sureties, the accused be released on bail on one surety. The reliance is also placed on CRM-M-39185-2013, titled as “Anil Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another”, decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.11.2013. A perusal of the said decision does not reveal the fact that as to how many cases were filed against the said petitioners and whether the petitioners had appeared in all those cases. The reliance is also placed on CRM-M-39185-2013, titled as “Anil Sharma vs. State of Punjab and another”, decided by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.11.2013. A perusal of the said decision does not reveal the fact that as to how many cases were filed against the said petitioners and whether the petitioners had appeared in all those cases. Even otherwise, the order relied upon by the petitioners cannot be treated as precedent as in the order the statutory provisions contained in Chapter XXXIII were not noticed. The stage of furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds is subsequent to grant of concession of bail. Therefore, unless and until the concession of bail is extended, the prayer for permitting the petitioners to furnish one surety in all the cases is not only premature but is a condition by accused. Since the petitioners are yet to appear and apply for bail before the trial Courts, therefore, the relief claimed in the present petition is premature and resultantly, the petition is dismissed.