S. No.130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CRM-M-63027 of 2025 Date of Decision:11.11.2025 Pankaj Kumar .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate and Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of order dated 7.8.2025 (Annexure P.4) passed by Sessions Judge, Ambala in Criminal Appeal vide CRA No.126 of 2002 titled “Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana” whereby application filed by the petitioner seeking exemption from personal appearance has been rejected and bail bonds of the present petitioner has been forfeited to the State and he was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants, along with subsequent orders dated 27.10.2025 and 31.10.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was granted bail and was regularly appearing before the Appellate Court but on 07.08.2025, an application seeking exemption from his personal appearance was moved through counsel on the ground that he is doing job in Mumbai and due to heavy rains, he is unable to appear before the Court. The application was rejected on the ground that the same is not supported by any affidavit/ documents. While rejecting the same, ld. Sessions Judge has cancelled his bail and forfeited the bonds to State and ordered to summon him through non-bailable warrants for 27.10.2025. Thereafter, on 27.10.2025, the said case was adjourned to 31.10.2025. His absence was not intentional and he never intended to abscond or delay the decision of appeal. Learned counsel further contended that object of bail is not punitive but to ensure the presence of accused during the proceedings and his past conduct also establishes that he had no intention to break the process of law and he undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the Court. It has been prayed that impugned orders be set aside.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Ms. Vasundhara Dalal Anand, Sr. DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and has opposed the prayer and argued that petitioner absented and has hampered the trial and the impugned order is not liable to be quashed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the material on the file.

6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the judgment reported as Law Finder Doc.id# 2765158, 2025:NCPHHC:106708 “Sahib Singh @ Saab Singh Vs. State of Punjab” has held that issuance of non-bailable warrants should not be exercised in a mechanical manner and must be adopted sparingly, only upon recording cogent reasons reflecting the necessity of such a stringent course. It has been further held that cancellation of bail amounts to unjustifiable restriction on procedural rights of petitioner in the absence of any misconduct or deliberate attempt to evade proceedings and petitioner-accused was directed to appear before the trial Court and to furnish an undertaking to appear on each and every date of hearing and was ordered to be released on bail. It was further held that object of bail is to secure appearance of accused at trial and deprivation of liberty must only be necessitated by extraordinary circumstances and courts should avoid punitive approach and adhere to procedural safeguards enshrined under the law. In holding so, reliance was placed upon 1978(1) SCC 118 “Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (UT of Delhi) and (2012) 1 SCC 40 “Sanjay Chander Vs. CBI”

7. In the present case also, a perusal of record shows that the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the Appellate Court, as reflected from the various zimni orders placed on file. However, he absented on 07.08.2025 and his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited and the following order was passed:-

“An application see