IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.09.2025 Rajender @ Raju @ Rajinder Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocates for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS of 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Fatehabad vide which the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants in case FIR No.509 dated 19.12.2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(b) of NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, District Fatehabad.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question based solely on the disclosure statement made by his co-accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner was earlier granted bail by the concerned Court and had been regularly appearing before the same thereafter. However, on 16.07.2024, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court due to a miscommunication regarding the date fixed for his appearance. Learned counsel further contends that since the petitioner was released on bail in another case on 21.03.2024 and he was under the mistaken impression that he had been acquitted in the present case. As a result, the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court, which led to the cancellation of his bail and the issuance of non-bailable warrants against him. Learned counsel has further 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. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice 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 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 have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates