IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49927-2025 Date of decision: 08.09.2025 RAJIV KUMAR ALIAS PUPPY ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Hemant Hans, Advocate for the petitioner.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 26.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula in case bearing FIR No.47 dated 21.04.2021 registered under Sections 341, 395 IPC (Sections 325, 412 read with Section 120-B IPC added later on) P.S. Sector 20, District Panchkula, whereby, the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail bonds/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State followed by issuance of warrants of arrest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before learned trial Court. However, on 26.08.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as he was detained by the CIA staff of Haryana Police on 25.08.2025. Subsequently, vide order dated 26.08.2025, learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner and his warrants of arrest were issued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that non- appearance of the petitioner was not deliberate or intentional and thus, aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order is 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. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice for the respondent-State and submits that the impugned order has 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. Whether the default on the part of the accused is intentional or unintentional depends on facts of each case. In the present case, the petitioner did not appear on 26.08.2025 before the learned Trial Court and ultimately on 26.08.2025 his bail was cancelled, bail bonds were forfeited to State followed by issuance of bailable warrants. The petitioner has stated that he could not appear before the learned Trial Court on 26.08.2025 as he was detained by the CIA staff of Haryana Police on 25.08.2025. By filing the present petition the petitioner has shown his intention to submit before the learned Trial Court.

9. The sole purpose of issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

10. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be directed to appear before the trial Court, so that trial may resume. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 26.08.2025 is set aside to the extent of cancellation of bail and issuance of bailable warrants only, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court on or before

25.09.2025.

11. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings will not be delayed because of his conduct.

12. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court wi