121 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.01.2025 Hardeep Singh alias Kaka Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab with Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of impugned order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby, the bail bonds/surety bonds of the petitioner have been cancelled and forfeited to the State followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants and quashing of impugned order dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) vide which the petitioner has been declared as proclaimed person in case bearing FIR No.04 dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 13A/3/67 of The Punjab Gambling Act, 1867 registered at Police Station Bhikhi, District Mansa.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court but due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not appear before the learned trial Court on 16.01.2023 and thereafter, he was neither summoned nor arrested in the present case till 12.02.2024 and the petitioner was under the impression that the matter is over as the impugned FIR has been registered under petty offence. It is further submitted that later on the petitioner came to know that his bail bonds/surety bonds have been cancelled and forfeited to the State and without affecting proper and valid service upon him, he has been declared as proclaimed person.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the non- appearance of the petitioner was not deliberate and intentional and thus, aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the ground of unintentional non-appearance of the petitioner.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl.A.G., Punjab with Mr. S.S. Goripuria, DAG, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice for the respondent and submits that the impugned orders have been passed on the sole ground of the absence of the petitioner, however, it is not disputed by him that petitioner was already on bail and had been appearing before the trial Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

8. A perusal of the orders dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) and 12.02.2024 (Annexure P-3) reflect that the trial Court proceeded to pass the extreme order of cancellation of bail for the solitary absence of petitioner and thereafter, declare him as proclaimed person. Many a times, the accused can be prevented by sufficient reasons to put an appearance before the Court on a given date and, therefore, it necessarily cannot be construed as a deliberate and wilful absence. The explanation offered for non appearance before the trial Court is justified and, therefore, the same is accepted.

9. While the scheme of criminal justice system necessitates curtailment of personal liberty to some extent, it is of the utmost importance that the same is done in line with the procedure established by law to maintain a healthy balance between personal liberty of the individual-accused and interests of the society in promoting law and order. Such procedure must be compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution of India i.e. it must be fair, just and not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

10. The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants or proclamation is to secure presence of the