IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (162) Rahul ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 18.03.2026 Date of uploading: 18.03.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, primarily seeking quashing of the order dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P- 5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants in case pertaining to FIR No.182 dated 05.10.2023, registered at Police Station Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure P-6), vide which proclamation was ordered to be issued against him in the aforementioned FIR.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the petitioner was released on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) and had been regularly appearing before the concerned trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that on account of ill health, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial Court on 27.01.2026. Consequently, the learned trial Court proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against him for 10.02.2026 while cancelling his bail. It is further submitted that due to his ill health, the petitioner also could not inform his counsel to move an application seeking exemption from personal appearance. Subsequently, on 10.02.2026, proclamation proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that due to non- appearance of the petitioner, the learned trial Court proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s bail and issued non-bailable warrants for his arrest without affording an adequate opportunity to explain his non-appearance. Learned counsel has iterated that the non-appearance of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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. On the strength of advance notice; Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab causes appearance on behalf of the respondent-State. He has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before the trial Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties 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 s