IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 31.10.2025 Baaru . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

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

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

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 orders dated 28.08.2025 and 06.10.2025 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby, after cancelling the bail of the petitioner, warrants of arrest have been issued against him on account of his non- appearance in case FIR No. 51 dated 08.03.2022, registered under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 379 of the IPC, 1860, at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been regularly appearing in the trial proceedings after being granted bail on 06.07.2022 (Annexure P-2). However, on one occasion, i.e., 28.08.2025, he could not appear before the Court as he was stranded in his village due to a flood-like situation caused by heavy rains. He had informed his counsel for moving an application seeking personal exemption and had also sent photographs depicting the said flood situation. However, his counsel at the trial Court demanded fees for filing the exemption application, which the petitioner was unable to pay that day. Consequently, his bail bonds were cancelled and notice to his sureties was issued. The petitioner was not informed of the passing of such an order.

It is further submitted that on 06.10.2025, when the petitioner went to attend the case, the clerk of his counsel informed him that his bail bonds had already been cancelled on the previous date of hearing and advised him not to appear, suggesting instead that he approach this Hon’ble Court. Learned counsel submits that the absence of the petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional, but for the reasons mentioned above.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is now ready and willing to join the process of law and prays that, upon surrendering before the Court, he may be released on bail and protected from arrest. He undertakes that, if one opportunity is granted, he shall not absent himself in future without prior permission of the Court and shall fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial.

4. Notice of motion.

5. 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.

6. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in criminal cases after being released on bail and thereby compelling the Court to issue warrants of arrest 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 intentional to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalized after examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay.

Primary object of every Court is only to examine the