JUDGMENT :

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. 

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, primarily seeking quashing of the order dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants in case pertaining to FIR No.48 dated 18.06.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A IPC, at Police Station Hathur, District Ludhiana, Punjab (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after investigation the challan was presented and thereafter, the charges were framed on 10.01.2025. On 19.09.2025 and 03.10.2025, the petitioner was granted exemption from personal appearance on the basis of the application moved by his counsel on the ground that he had to travel to Madhya Pradesh as he was deputed by his employer to purchase certain products on 19.09.2025. However, on 17.10.2025, neither did the counsel appear nor was any application moved, seeking exemption from personal appearance, therefore notice was ordered to be issued to petitioner for 10.11.2025. On 10.11.2025, notice issued to the petitioner was not received back. Consequently, the petitioner’s bail was cancelled, bail and surety bonds were forfeited to the State and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Thus, the petitioner prays that the order of the Ld. Trial Court cancelling his bail, be set aside as perverse and contrary to the principle of natural justice.

3. Learned counsel reiterates that the non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court was neither willful nor intentional. Learned counsel has contended that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court in straight-away issuing non-bailable warrants is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is a well established position of law, reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the Courts must adhere to due process while securing the presence of the accused. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner unequivocally undertake to appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing, join the proceedings in accordance with law and to cooperate for an expeditious culmination of the trial.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Ms.Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. She has opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner misused the concession of bail earlier granted by failing to appear before the trial Court and no plausible explanation has been furnished for their absence on the aforesaid date.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

7. 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 to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant ar