JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS of 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 05.02.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda vide which the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against him in CRA No.471 of 2018 titled as 'Harcharan Singh Vs. The Bathinda Central Cooperative Bank Limited etc.'

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court and held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years or to pay compensation to complainant to the tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs.6,77,000/-alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of cheque in question. On an appeal being preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Bathinda, the sentence imposed upon the petitioner was ordered to be suspended and he was released on bail, vide order dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P-2). According to the learned counsel, since then, the petitioner was regularly appearing before the said Court, but sometimes due to old age ailments, he could not appear. On account of his non-appearance his counsel had filed exemption applications and on 03.02.2025 also and case was adjourned to 05.02.2025. On 05.02.2025 counsel for the petitioner could not appear and no application on behalf of the petitioner had been filed, as the said date was not informed to the petitioner. However, the trial Court did not consider the said aspect and wrongly cancelled the bail vide the impugned order and issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against the petitioner. Learned counsel asserts that the issuance of non-bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when the petitioner's absence was neither deliberate nor to evade the process of law. Learned counsel has contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Sessions Court in directly issuing the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. Further submitted that 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 Sessions Court 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 a expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Notice of motion, at this stage, to respondent No.1 only.

4. Mr. Deepender Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-State of Punjab. He has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before the Sessions Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date.

5. The petition in hand emanates from the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the facts & circumstances of the case, this court does not deem it appropriate to call upon respondent No.2 at this stage.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties