JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J. (Oral) :

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS of 2023 seeking setting-aside of the order dated 18.02.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide which the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled resulting in the forfeiture of his bail bonds and surety bonds to the State and petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants of arrest in complaint titled as "Kotak Mahinder Bank Limited vs. One Source Logistics Private Limited an another" bearing COMA-837 of 2020.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the respondent-Bank had instituted five complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner and his company namely M/s One Source Logistics Private Limited. The subject matter of the instant petition is the complaint No.837 of 2020 titled as "Kotak Mahinder Bank Limited vs. One Source Logistics Private Limited and another" wherein the petitioner had caused appearance on 23.12.2024 and was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing the bail bonds and surety bonds. Learned counsel has further iterated that, since then, the petitioner was regularly appearing before the Court below and was diligently attending all the hearings. Learned counsel has submitted that on 18.02.2025, when the matter was listed before the Court below, the District Bar Association, Ludhiana, observed a "No work day" as a mark of respect following the demise of a Senior Advocate and as a result thereof, both the advocates and the clients were restricted from attending the Court proceedings. Learned counsel has submitted that despite the absence of the petitioner being unintentional and owing solely to the circumstances beyond his control, the learned Court below, without considering the inadvertence, erroneously cancelled the bail bonds and surety bonds of the petitioner. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioner vide impugned order i.e. 18.02.2025. Learned counsel has urged that the non-appearance of the petitioner before the Court below was neither deliberate nor intentional but purely on account of resolution passed by the District Bar Association, Ludhiana for observing "No work day". Learned counsel asserts that the petitioner has no intention to evade the proceedings and undertakes to be present before the Court below on all future dates of hearing without fail. According to learned counsel, the issuance of non-bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the petitioner's absence was purely inadvertent. Learned counsel has further contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Court below in directly issuing the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is well established position of law, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the Courts are required to adhere to due process while ensuring the presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case, the learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the Court below as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the Sessions Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Keeping in view the nature of the matter especially the factum of the case in hand arising out of the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, t