IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 SACHIN ...Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA ****

Present: Mr. Arman Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

MANISHA BATRA , J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), seeking quashing of order dated 12.09.2024 and all the subsequent orders passed thereby in case arising out of FIR No.156 dated 04.04.2020, under Sections

188 and 294 of IPC, at Police Station Kundli, District Sonipat.

2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 12.09.2024, vide which the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State, is not sustainable in the eyes of law as he could not appear before the learned trial Court on that date due to the warrant of arrest issued against him in some another FIR and as proclamation proceedings were ordered to be initiated. Apprehending his arrest in that case, the petitioner could not appear in this case as well. The petitioner has been granted benefit of interim bail in that case. He is ready to join the proceedings before the learned trial Court and undertakes to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed upon him. His absence was not intentional but due to the reason stated above. It is, therefore, submitted that the petition be allowed.

4. Notice of motion.

5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Apoorv Garg, learned Addl. A.G, Haryana has accepted advance notice of the petition and has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. It is, therefore, contended that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.

6. I have heard rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

7. The petitioner has absented himself on 12.09.2024 due to which bail was cancelled by the learned trial Court. Now fresh warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner. The explanation given by learned counsel for the petitioner for his non-appearance is that warrants of arrest were issued against him in some other case and then proclamation proceedings were initiated. This cannot be stated to be a sufficient reason for setting aside the impugned order. Though this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order and subsequent orders passed by the learned trial Court, however, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready to join the proceedings before the learned trial Court, and further keeping in view that his absence does not warrant the consequence of detaining him in custody when he is willing to participate in the trial and the aim is expeditious disposal of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court on or before within 20 days from today. It is further ordered that upon his surrender and on moving an appropriate application, the learned trial Court shall admit him to bail subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds to its satisfaction as well as on deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/- with the District Legal Services Authority concerned. However, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed if the petitioner fails to comply with this order.

8. Petition stands disposed of.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

(MANISHA BATRA)

JUDGE December 12, 2025 Nisha-1