IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-68005-2025 Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 KARAN CHUGH ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. S.S. Sarwara, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Jatinder Pal 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 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, SAS Nagar whereby bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and bail bonds have been forfeited and non bailable warrants have been issued in case arising out of CHA-06-2022 registered on 25.01.2022 titled as “State Vs.

Mukesh Kumar and others”, on account of his absence.

2. Notice of motion. Mr. Jatinder Pal Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

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

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was released on bail in the present case and he was regularly appearing before the Trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was released on regular bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2021 and thereafter, challan was presented against him and he was ordered to be summoned to face the trial. Vide order dated 31.08.2023, notice was issued to him for 21.10.2023. On 21.10.2023, notice was again ordered to be issued for 22.11.2023. On 22.11.2023, notice was received back unserved and his bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited. However, since the notice had been received back unserved, the bail could not have been cancelled and the Trial Magistrate should have made efforts to secure his presence by way of issuing bailable warrants. No reasons have also been recorded to show that the accused had wilfully absented. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner had tried to hamper the progress of the trial on that date. Rather, neither his absence was intentional nor did he ever intended to abscond or delay the trial. Learned counsel further contended that object of bail is not punitive but to ensure the presence of accused during the trial and his past conduct also establishes that he had no intention to disobey 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 order be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer and argued that petitioner absented and has hampered the trial and the impugned order is not liable to be quashed.

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. A perusal of record shows that the petitioner was released on regular bail by the Tr