IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-531-2026

Date of Decision: 13.01.2026

VARNAR JUNIOR @ WERNER JUNIOR ......... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

Present : Mr. D.B. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sri Muktsar Sahib whereby bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds have been forfeited and non bailable warrants have been issued in case arising out of FIR No.175 dated 25.09.2024 under Section 21-B of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (Offence under Section 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib, on account of

his absence.

2. Notice of motion. Mr. M.S. Toor, AAG, Punjab, accepts

notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned State counsel and have gone through the material on the file.

4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2765158, 2025:NCPHHC:106708 “Sahib Singh

@ Saab Singh Vs. State of Punjab” has held that issuance of non- bailable warrants should not be exercised in a mechanical manner and must be adopted sparingly, only upon recording cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course. It has been further held that cancellation of bail amounts to unjustifiable restriction on procedural rights of petitioner in the absence of any misconduct or deliberate attempt to evade proceedings and petitioner-accused was directed to appear before the trial Court and to furnish an undertaking to appear on each and every date of hearing and was ordered to be released on bail. It was further held that object of bail is to secure appearance of accused at trial and deprivation of liberty must only be necessitated by extraordinary circumstances and courts should avoid punitive approach and adhere to procedural safeguards enshrined under the law. In holding so, reliance was placed upon 1978(1) SCC 118 “Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (UT of Delhi) and (2012) 1 SCC 40 “Sanjay Chander Vs. CBI”

5. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner was released on interim regular bail on 08.11.2024 and the said interim regular bail was made absolute by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide order dated 25.11.2024. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 31.05.2025 for prosecution evidence but, as no prosecution witness was present, the case was adjourned to 09.12.2025. However, on 09.12.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court and his bail was cancelled. As per the medical report placed on record as Annexure P-5, the petitioner had suffered fractures in both his legs on 01.11.2024 and was advised two months’ bed rest, due to which he could not appear in the Court. Furthermore, a perusal of the order dated

09.12.2025 shows that no prosecution witness was present and the exemption application moved on behalf of the co-accused, namely Nandini, was allowed. As such, no substantial proceedings were going to the conducted from which it could be inferred that accused had willfully absented to hamper the trial. The past conduct of the petitioner also shows that he had never misused the concession of bail and he had been regularly appearing before the Trial Court. He never hampered the progress of the trial and on account of his single absence, his bail was cancelled. Rather, instead of cancelling the bail on account of his non- appearance, the Court ought to have issued a court notice to him or exempted his personal appearance with a direction to appear on the next date and the punitive order of cancellation of bail could thus have been avoided. On this account, the impugned order is liab