IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (141)

Viswas Yadav @ Vishwas @ Vishu ....Petitioner V/s State of Haryana ....Respondent Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Date of uploading: 11.02.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Saajan, Advocate for Mr. Amardeep Singh Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, primarily seeking quashing of the order dated 20.08.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned ACJM, Rewari, vide which the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants in case pertaining to FIR No.148 dated 23.04.2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 506, 34 IPC, at Police Station Dharuhera, District Rewari. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the presentation of challan on 26.02.2020 and the petitioner was granted the concession of bail by the concerned trial Court on the said date. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further argued that due to Covid-19 the case was kept adjourned. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further argued that on 20.08.2022 the petitioner could not appear before the concerned trial Court as he was not aware about the next date fixed before the trial Court and the trial Court ordered the petitioner ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants for 02.03.2023 while cancelling the petitioner’s bail without affording an adequate opportunity to explain his non-appearance. Learned counsel has iterated that the non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court was not willful and unintentional. Learned counsel has contended that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court in directly issuing the non-bailable warrants against the petitioner is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is well established position of law, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the Courts are required to adhere to due process while ensuring the presence of the accused. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the trial Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He has opposed the petition in hand by arguing that the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before the trial Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

5. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a bette