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

CRM-M-63440 of 2025 Date of Decision:12.11.2025 Ashish @ Bablu .....Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of order dated 03.09.2025 passed by Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana in case FIR No.208 dated 03.12.2024 registered under Sections 21, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana whereby application filed by the petitioner seeking exemption from personal appearance has been rejected and he was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was granted bail and was regularly appearing before the Court but on 03.09.2025, an application seeking exemption from his personal appearance was moved through counsel on the ground that his daughter had met with an accident and both the legs of his daughter got injured who was admitted in the hospital and as such, he was unable to appear before the Court. However, the application was rejected.

While rejecting the same, ld. Judge, Special Court ordered to summon him through non-bailable warrants for 24.09.2025. His absence was not intentional and he never intended to abscond or delay the decision of trial. 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. Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab, 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 learned Court. However, he absented on 03.09.2025 and non bailable warrants were issued against him by passing following order:-

“Copies of challan along with documents annexed with it supplied to accused Ajay Kumar @ Babbi free of costs as per Section

230 of BNS.

An application for exemption of personal appearance of accused Ashish has been moved by his counsel. As there is no plausible reason mentioned in the exemption application, so the same is declined. Accor