JUDGMENT :

SUMEET GOEL, J. 

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, primarily seeking quashing of the order dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure P- 9) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which the petitioners were ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants in case pertaining to FIR No.0060 dated 17.10.2023 under Sections 420, 419, IPC registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Yamuna Nagar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that earlier the petitioners were released on bail by the competent Court and were regularly appearing before the concerned Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that since petitioner No.1 was suffering from acute abdominal pain and petitioner No.2 was suffering from viral infection, they could not appear before the concerned Court on the date fixed and moved applications for exemption from personal appearance. However, , the learned trial Court declined the applications and proceeded to cancel the petitioners bail and issued non-bailable warrants for their arrest without affording an adequate opportunity to explain his non-appearance. Learned counsel has iterated that the non-appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court was not willful and unintentional. Learned counsel has contended that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court in directly issuing the non- bailable warrants against the petitioners 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 trial Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. She has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the petitioners have misused the concession of bail earlier extended to them by not appearing before the trial Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioners did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also learned State counsel and have perused the available record.

6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense