IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.01.2025 Rajinder Kumar Nagar and another ....Petitioners V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Kulwinder Bhargav, Advocate for the petitioners.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS of 2023 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated 19.12.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Mohali vide which the petitioners were ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants in FIR No.0038 dated 13.01.2022 registered under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120-B of IPC at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners had earlier been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court and since then they were regularly appearing before the trial Court. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners, on account of serious illness, were unable to appear before the trial Court on 19.12.2024 and accordingly filed the application(s) seeking exemption from personal appearance. However, the trial Court has declined the said exemption application(s) of the petitioners and summoned them through non-bailable warrants of arrest for 15.01.2025 i.e. the next date of hearing. Learned counsel has iterated that the non-appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court was solely attributable to their deteriorating health and was entirely unintentional. Furthermore their non-appearance was not willful but was purely on account of their ill health. Learned counsel has contended that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court in directly issuing the non- bailable warrants against the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners unequivocally undertake to enter appearance before the trial Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioners shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for a expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Mr. Yuvraj Singh, AAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the official respondent-State of Punjab. He has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioners are serious in nature, the petitioners have misused the concession of bail earlier extended to them by not appearing before the trial Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioners 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 significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I