131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 19.12.2025 SONIA ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Kashav Chadha, Advocate with Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing of order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC, Sirsa in FIR No.105 dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 21(B)/27A/61/85 of NDPS Act, Police Station City Sirsa, Haryana whereby the bail of petitioner was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited and petitioner was summoned through non-bailable of arrest.

2. Notice of motion. Ms. Jasmine Gill, AAG, Haryana 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 contends that petitioner was released on bail in the present case. Petitioner had been appearing before the Trial Court regularly and the case was fixed for framing of charge. On 29.03.2025, she was present in the Court but accused Neelu was not present and the case was adjourned to 29.04.2025. On

29.04.2025, petitioner moved an application for exemption on the ground of illness and her personal appearance was exempted. On that date also, accused Neelu was absent and her arrest was ordered to be issued for 11.08.2025. However, on 11.08.2025, petitioner herself absented and her bail was cancelled. Therefore, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner had tried to hamper the progress of the trial on that date. Rather, neither her absence was intentional nor did she ever intend 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 her past conduct also establishes that she had no intention to disobey the process of law and she 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. In the present case, the bail was cancelled vide order dated 11.08.2025 (Annexure P-6). A perusal of the record shows that petitioner had been appearing before the Trial Court regularly and the case was fixed for framing of charge. On 29.03.2025, she was present in the Court but accused Neelu was not present and the case was adjourned to 29.04.2025. On 29.04.2025, petitioner moved an application f