IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-68705-2025 Decided on: December 08, 2025 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal ......Petitioner Versus Gurjeet Singh and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, DAG, Punjab, for respondent No. 2 – State.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.10.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, whereby after cancelling the bail of the petitioner, and forfeiture of the surety/personal bonds to the State, non-bailable warrants have been issued against him, on account of his non-appearance in a case No. NACT-2290-2023, titled as, “Gurjeet Singh v. Sanjeev Kumar Goyal”, arising out of complaint, dated 02.12.2022 (Annexure P- 1), under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’), filed by respondent No. 1 herein.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 – Gurjeet Singh has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, against the petitioner. On 10.01.2024, the petitioner appeared in the said case, and was granted bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety. Since, the petitioner was unable to arrange surety on that day, accordingly considering his request, he was released on personal bonds with the condition that he will furnish regular surety bond on next date of hearing i.e. 23.02.2024.

3. Learned counsel further submits that on 23.10.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court due to health issue, which resulted into cancellation of his bail order. Further, his bail/surety/personal bonds were also cancelled and forfeited to the State, and non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued.

Learned counsel, thus, submits that absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the reasons, as mentioned above.

4. Learned Counsel further submits that now petitioner is ready to join the process of law, however, he be directed to be released on bail, on his surrendering before the Court and, thus, be protected from arrest. In case, one opportunity is granted, petitioner also undertakes that he would not absent himself in future, without there being prior permission from the Court, and fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel puts an appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2 - State, 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, as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda, in the impugned order dated 23.10.2025, submits that there is every possibility that for the purpose of delaying the trial, the petitioner would again be absenting during the proceedings.

7. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in criminal cases after being released on bail and thereby compelling the Court to issue non-bailable warrants 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 pen