IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (161)

Eshan Paruthi @ Ishan Paruthi @ Ishan Pruthi ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab ....Respondent Date of decision: 01.04.2026 Date of uploading: 01.04.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Saurabh Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023, primarily seeking quashing of the orders dated 08.09.2025 (Annexure P-4) and 16.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which bail bond and surety bonds of the petitioner has been forfeited and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants in case pertaining to FIR No.112 dated 17.06.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 21(b)/61/85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after having been released on bail on 13.07.2021 by the concerned Court, the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the concerned trial Court. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that on account of his ill health as he was diagnosed with Tuberculosis and was under regular medical treatment, the petitioner could not appear before the concerned trial Court on 08.09.2025 and on this account the trial Court proceeded to issue non-bailable warrants against him while cancelling his bail orders. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.01.2026, the trial Court issued proclamation against the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that due to non- appearance of the petitioner, the learned trial Court proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s bail and issued non-bailable warrants for his arrest 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 at the very first instance 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. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case, the learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. 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. Notice of motion.

4. On the strength of advance notice; Mr. Adhiraj Singh, AAG, Punjab causes appearance 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.

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

6. 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