IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 25.02.2025 Saloni and another . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Sahil Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-1), passed by Ld. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Shahbad, whereby after canceling the bail of the petitioner, non- bailable warrants have been issued against them, on account of their non- appearance in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’), bearing No. NACT/163/2020, titled as, “Simranjeet v. M/s Aussican Consultants Etc.”.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in a case filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, which is pending since the year 2020, petitioners have been regularly attending the Court proceedings. Recently, on 15.02.2025 also, they appeared and recorded their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Further contends that on 19.02.2025, petitioners had four other cases listed before the District Court, Kurukshetra, for examination of prosecution witnesses. Thus, due to unforseen and unavoidable circumstances, they were unable to attend these proceedings in-person. However, they duly filed personal exemption applications in those cases, which were considered and allowed by the respective Courts. In this regard, learned counsel refers to Annexures P-4 to P-7, respectively (i.e. orders passed by the Courts qua exemption from personal appearance in those respective cases).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 19.02.2025, petitioners moved specific application for seeking exemption from personal appearance before Ld. Trial Court, Shahabad, by submitting that they are not medically fit, thus, unable to attend the Court proceedings, but with taking into consideration the said fact, and while cancelling the bail already granted to them, Ld. Trial Court issued non-bailable warrants of arrest for

21.02.2025.

Learned counsel, thus, submits that absence of the petitioners was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the reasons, as mentioned above.

4. Learned Counsel further submits that now petitioner is ready to join the process of law, however, he be directed to be released on bail, on his surrendering before the Court and thus, be protected from arrest. In case, one opportunity is granted, petitioner also undertakes that he would not absent himself in future, without there being prior permission from the Court, and fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he has misused the concession of bail granted by the Court. Learned State counsel by pointing out the irresponsible conduct of the petitioner, submits that there is every possibility that for the purpose of delaying the trial, he would again be absenting during the proceedings.

7. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in criminal cases after being released on bail and thereby compelling the Court to issue non-bailable warrants by cancelling the bail already granted or such accused is declared ‘Proclaimed Person’/Proclaimed Offender’, after examining the facts, this Court has formulated to apply a uniform method by satisfying itself that such accused would appear before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings to await the presence of accused.

Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case in which he is involved, and where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentiona