G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The petitioner, in a petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeks grant of interim bail to the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2018 on account of the bail being cancelled by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar on 08.04.2022. The said order was passed on account of the fact that exemption application had been filed and the Court had noticed that in the connected matter, his bail was cancelled and his warrant of arrest had already been issued. In that circumstance, the bail was cancelled and the bail bonds had been forfeited and his presence was to be secured through warrant of arrest for 21.05.2022. Notice was also issued to the surety and the identifier.
2. Learned counsel submits that in the connected matter in which he was an appellant, he had not deposited the 20% amount and, therefore, warrants of arrest had been issued. It is submitted that liberty was given to deposit the said amount by filing an appropriate application for recall of the said order, though no relief had been granted by setting aside the order of warrant of arrest. The order passed in CRM-M-26701-2022 reads thus:-
“The present petition has been filed under Section 438 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Criminal Appeal No.190 of 2018, Parbhat @ Parul vs. Ajit Kumar.
The bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and the bonds forfeited on account of the fact that he did not put in appearance before the Appellate Court and his application was not supported by any medical record or affidavit. It is also apparent that he did not comply with the mandatory requirement of depositing 20% of the amount of Rs.18,54,000/-, which was the compensation amount and also the bounced cheque amount on the basis of which, he had been convicted for a period of one year. Though opportunity was granted on 25.02.2021 and another opportunity had been granted on 19.04.2021 and the case was listed for 15.07.2021 but the deposit had not been made. In such circumstances, now warrants of arrest have been issued qua him while issuing notice to the surety and the identifier.
Thus, keeping in view the above facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that the argument raised that the appeal can be heard without complying with the mandate of provisions of section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is without any basis. The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity not once, but at least on three occasions, to deposit the 20% amount. Thus the Appellate Court has rightly as such enforced his presence and no case is made out to exercise the jurisdiction for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
It is, however, open to the petitioner to put in appearance and furnish the said amount by way of demand draft on the next date of hearing before the Appellate Court and file an appropriate application for recall of the order.”
3. Keeping in view the above, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the concerned Court for recall of the said order by filing an appropriate application. The said Court shall take a decision on the same without taking the petitioner in custody since the petitioner has been given an opportunity to appear in the complaint which had been filed by Ajit Kumar and another and furnish the 20% amount. In case he does so, the Court shall consider recalling the order dated 08.04.2022 so that a decision on merits can be taken in the appeal which the petitioner has filed against complaint filed by Mukesh Kumar.
4. With the abovesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
