Raj Kumar vs. Central Goods And Service Tax Division Rohtak

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's non-appearance on April 12, 2023, was unintentional, given the medical emergency of his employer's sister, as evidenced by the indoor patient file. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's prior regular appearance and his undertaking for future compliance. The objective of the Code of Criminal Procedure's coercive mechanism is to ensure the accused's presence. The Court found that if an accused demonstrates a sincere intention to appear, protecting them from arrest is not unjustified. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within two weeks and be released on bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds.

Facts

The petitioner, Raj Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a complaint case filed under the NDPS Act. He had previously been granted bail by the High Court, but this bail was cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, due to his unintentional non-appearance on April 12, 2023, before the trial court. The petitioner's counsel argued that his absence was due to his employer's sister undergoing surgery, supported by medical documentation. The respondent contended that the petitioner's non-appearance and the lack of an exemption application or counsel's presence warranted dismissal. The petitioner undertook to appear regularly in the future.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of his previous bail being cancelled due to unintentional non-appearance before the trial court, and if so, under which provision of law? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that his non-appearance on April 12, 2023, was unintentional and supported by evidence of a medical emergency (sister of employer's surgery). He relied on the judgment in CRM-M-21276-2018 titled Davinder Singh @ Sonu Vs. State of Punjab, 2019 (1) RCR (Criminal) 661, to support his claim for anticipatory bail. He also undertook to appear regularly in the future. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner's failure to appear on April 12, 2023, without filing an exemption application or having his counsel present, meant the petition was liable to be dismissed.