##PAGE1##

CRM-M No.17944 of 2026 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

160 *****

CRM-M No.17944 of 2026 Date of decision : 6.4.2026

Date of uploading : 6.4.2026

Paramjeet Singh @ Tinku ………….Petitioner Versus

State of Punjab …….Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present: Mr. Tanvir Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner (through VC)

---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of the order dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby regular bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled; his bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State and non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against him in case FIR No.257 dated 19.12.2019, registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at

Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner had been earlier granted the concession of regular bail by learned Judge, Special Court, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide order dated 17.1.2020 and he was

ASHWANI KUMAR

2026.04.06 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.17944 of 2026 -2-

regularly appearing before the trial Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner couldn’t appear before the learned trial Court on 11.11.2025 and moved an application seeking exemption from his personal presence. However, the said application was declined by the learned trial Court and his bail orders were cancelled; his bail bonds and surety bonds etc. were forfeited to the State and his non-bailable warrants alongwith notice to his surety were ordered to be issued. Learned counsel submits that issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when absence of the petitioner was purely inadvertent, which was neither intentional nor deliberate. 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 expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the strength of advance service of copy of petition, Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State. He opposes the petition in hand by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, 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.

ASHWANI KUMAR

2026.04.06 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.17944 of 2026 -3-

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 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