IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 09.02.2026 Pardeep Kumar …...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Suneel Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG Haryana ****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

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 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), whereby bail order of the petitioner was cancelled and bail bonds and surety bonds were also stood cancelled and forfeited to State, on account of his non-

appearance in the following FIR:-

FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District

18 27.01.2023 21, 29 of NDPS Sector-20 Panchkula Act, 1985

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is facing proceedings in the above-said FIR and he was granted the concession of regular bail by the Court below vide order dated 31.03.2023 (Annexure P-2). After the time of granting of the concession of regular bail, the petitioner diligently appearing before the learned trial Court and was following all the terms and conditions of bail order but due to noting of wrong date as 15.12.2025 instead of actual date 08.12.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the Court and, therefore, the concession of bail was cancelled vide order dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-3). Hence, the petitioner has challenged the said order. However, he submits that in case one more opportunity is granted, he undertakes to never be absent before the Court till final adjudication of the case before it.

Thus learned counsel submits that in case one opportunity is granted for releasing the petitioner on bail, by protecting him from arrest, the petitioner 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.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he knowingly evade the proceedings before the trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at his behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioner would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial.

5. After examining the facts, this Court has formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused.

Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case 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 penalized examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay.

Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it viz-a-viz the person/accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay.

It is not expected that undue time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest such accused.

Considering all such aspects, this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish Handa Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (4) RCR (criminal) 765; Law Finder Doc Id # 20238111 considered similar plea of appearance, expressed at the instance of the accused, who failed to appear before the Court at appropriate time, and observed that:

“paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than