Observing that subjecting her to a “pre-trial detention” would be too harsh a punishment and “would negatively impact her reputation,” the Punjab & Haryana High Court granted anticipatory bail to an “illiterate woman” who was declared a proclaimed person in a cheque dishonour case. A bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar also held that courts need to be “more empathetic and considerate towards women when the question of curtailment of liberty arises”. “In light of the constitutional scheme, special provisions have been made under Section 154, 160, 309, 357B, 357C, 437 of the CrPC to protect the rights of women. In keeping with the principles enshrined in the Constitution, the courts are required to be more empathetic and considerate towards women when the question of curtailment of liberty arises since it is not just the woman who suffers but so does her family,” observed Justice Brar. “Many women who commit cognisable offences are poor and illiterate. In many cases, they have children to take care of, and there are many instances when the children have no other option but to live in prisons with their mothers…The petitioner in the present case is an illiterate woman and subjecting her to pre-trial detention would be too harsh and not proportional to the punishment prescribed for the said offence,” the bench observed while granting anticipatory bail to the woman. The bench ordered the petitioner to appear before the trial court within two weeks “and on her doing so, the trial court shall admit her to bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to its satisfaction”. The court was hearing the petition filed by a woman who, through her counsel, submitted that she had entered into a land deal in Pathankot. In this regard, she had issued a cheque in October 2020 for Rs 3.20 lakh in favour of Tarsem Lal, the respondent in the case. But the cheque was dishonoured. The respondent then filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before a judicial magistrate's court in Pathankot. A notice was served on the petitioner. But as she failed to appear before the court multiple times, following which a proclamation order was issued against her. She moved the high court after a sessions court in Pathankot dismissed her bail plea. However, the state counsel sought dismissal of her anticipatory bail plea stating that she did not appear before the court in spite of a notice served on her through her sister-in-law. On perusing the impugned order dated November 4, 2023, whereby the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail was dismissed by the trial court, Justice Brar said, “It indicates that bailable warrants are shown to have been served upon the petitioner on April 29, 2021, through her sister-in-law. The counsel for the petitioner has categorically contended that the petitioner and her sister-in-law are not on talking terms. As such service of the petitioner was never effected before declaring her as proclaimed person”.
