IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-41692-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.11.2025 KANWARPAL SINGH ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

CRM-44757-2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the document is taken on record as Annexure P-15 subject to all just exceptions.

Registry to tag the same at appropriate place.

Disposed of.

Main Case

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court/Special Judge, District Patiala in case bearing FIR No.11 dated 14.01.2013 registered under Sections 458, 323, 324, 427, 148, 149 IPC P.S. Rajpura City, District Patiala, 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 non-bailable warrants.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on bail and was allowed to go abroad for a period of 180 days and was exempted for personal appearance. He submits that the case was listed for 02.04.2025 but he could not come back as his wife was pregnant, however, his counsel inadvertently failed to file an application for extension for exemption from personal appearance. Subsequently vide order dated 02.04.2025, learned trial Court forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner and his non-bailable warrants 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. He further submits that the petitioner is a U.S. citizen and as per VISA granted by Indian Government, he can stay in India for a maximum period of 180 days. Further, he could not come back to India as his wife was pregnant. 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. Ravinder Singh, DAG Punjab, 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 cases where it is found that absence of accused was intentional to evade the process of law, the accused can be penalised by imposing some cost.

9. In the present case, the petitioner did not appear on 02.04.2025 before the learned Trial Court and ultimately on 02.04.2025 itself his bail bonds were forfeited to State followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants. By filing the present petition the petitioner has shown his intention to submit before the learned Trial Court.

10. 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.

11. 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 02.04.2025 (Annexure P-9) is set aside and he is directed to be release