IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6965-2026 Date of decision: 09.02.2026 Jaspreet Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present : Mr. Gaurav Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J.(ORAL)

1. Challenge in the present petition is to order dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide which the bail granted to the petitioner in terms of order dated 15.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) was cancelled, personal bonds, surety bonds were also cancelled and forfeited to state. His presence was sought to be procured through non-bailable warrants.

2. Perusal of the case file goes to show that vide order dated 15.04.2024, petitioner was granted the concession of bail by this Court. Interim orders of the learned trial Court further indicate that on 20.08.2025 since petitioner was arrested in some other case, he was unable to attend the Court proceedings. However, no adverse view was taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and production warrants were issued. On the next 2 dates i.e. 08.09.2025 and 06.10.2025, petitioner continued to appear in custody. On 30.10.2025 and 17.11.2025, applications for exemption from personal appearance moved by petitioner-accused were sympathetically dealt with by learned trial Court by allowing the same. On 06.01.2026, an application of like nature was moved again, which was not allowed by the Court. Consequently, bail of the petitioner was cancelled, personal bonds, surety bonds were also cancelled and forfeited to state. His presence was sought to be procured through non-bailable warrants.

It is this order which has been assailed by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the absence of the petitioner before the concerned Court was not intentional but was on account of some medical ailment. Certificate issued by the concerned doctor has also been placed on record. With this backdrop, learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-10) passed by the learned trial Court, assuring that petitioner undertakes to surrender before the Court concerned immediately.

3. Heard. Documents on record perused.

4. This Court in CRM-M-36490-2022, titled as Major Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 15.09.2022, while considering the bonafide of the petitioner and finding the reason for his absence justified, set aside the order issuing non-bailable warrants. In CRM-M-38277-2022, Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, dated 26.08.2022 and CRM-M-39000-2022, titled as Raghav vs. State of Punjab, decided on 09.09.2022, the orders whereby non-bailable warrants were issued on account of his non-appearance, were set aside on the ground that the same was on account of having noted down the wrong date and failure of his counsel in not intimating the same.

5. Moreover, the primary purpose of issuing a non-bailable warrant is to secure the appearance of the accused, especially when they fail to appear after being served a summons or if they are likely to abscond. Courts issue NBWs as a last resort, after first attempting to secure attendance through summons and bailable warrants.

6. In the interest of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submission of learned counsel, the impugned order dated 06.01.2026, Annexure P-10, is set aside. Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned on 23.02.2026. On his appearance before the Court concerned, he be admitted to bail on his furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose any other condition tha