IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

156 CRM-M-73214-2025

Date of Decision : 24.12.2025

MANDEEP KUMAR ALIAS MEETI

...Petitioner

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY

Present: Mr. Manjinder Singh Saini, Advocate

for the petitioner.

****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.111 dated 27.06.2024 registered against him, at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur, for commission of offences punishable under Sections 379 IPC, seeks quashing of order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, vide which on account of his non-appearance, his bail was cancelled, personal bonds, surety bonds were also cancelled and forfeited

to State. His presence was sought to be procured through non-bailable warrants.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case. He was granted bail by the learned trial Court and had been regularly appearing before the learned Court. However, on 11.09.2025, on account of his non-appearance, his bail was cancelled and bail bonds/surety bonds were forfeited to the State. Continuing

further, learned counsel submits that the absence of petitioner on 11.09.2025, was not intentional but was on account of the fact that he had noted the wrong date of hearing. Thus, it has been prayed that lenient view be taken in his favour and order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned ACJM, Hoshiarpur, be set aside.

Further, learned counsel contends that petitioner is willing to surrender before the Court concerned and move an application for grant of bail. His only limited prayer is that the learned trial Court be directed to decide the bail application expeditiously.

3. Heard. Documents on record perused.

4. This Court in CRM-M-36490-2022, titled as Major Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 15.09.2022, while considering the bonafide of the petitioner and finding the reason for his absence justified, set aside the order issuing non-bailable warrants. In CRM-M-38277-2022, Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, dated 26.08.2022 and CRM-M-39000-2022, titled as Raghav vs. State of Punjab, decided on 09.09.2022, the orders whereby non-bailable warrants were issued on account of his non-appearance, were set aside on the ground that the same was on account of having noted down the wrong date and failure of his counsel in not intimating the same.

5. Moreover, the primary purpose of issuing a non-bailable warrant is to secure the appearance of the accused, especially when they fail to appear after being served a summons or if they are likely to abscond. Courts issue NBWs as a last resort, after first attempting to secure attendance through summons and bailable warrants.

6. In the interest of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and judgments referred hereinabove, the impugned order dated

11.09.2025 (Annexure P-4), is set aside. Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned within 15 days from today. On his appearance before the Court concerned, he shall be deemed to be on bail, subject to conditions so imposed by the Court. He is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Further, if petitioner moves an application for grant of bail, learned trial Court is directed to decide the same expeditiously.

7. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.

(AARADHNA SAWHNEY)

JU