IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sumit Juneja ….Petitioner versus State of Haryana ….Respondent Date of Decision: April 07, 2026 Date of Uploading: April 07, 2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. Arpandeep Narula, Advocate for the petitioner.

*****

SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula (for short ‘CJM’), whereby application filed by the petitioner; seeking cancellation of the order dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), passed by the said Court, thereby cancelling bail order of the petitioner and bail/surety bonds having been forfeited to the State, including issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner and notice to the surety; has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner had been earlier granted the concession of bail by learned Court below and was regularly appearing before the said Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that on 10.12.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the Court below, which was not intentional nor deliberate, but such situation arose on account of some technical glitch having been faced by the counsel for the petitioner, before the Court below, in his legal case management software, wherein, the case details were not reflected. It is further submitted that the office of counsel for the petitioner, before the Court below, mistakenly noted down wrong date and conveyed the same as such to the petitioner and, thus, the petitioner could not appear before the Court below on 10.12.2025. Learned counsel has further argued that no effective proceedings had undertaken on the said date and even no prejudice was caused to the prosecution and the applications seeking exemption from appearance of the co-accused were also allowed on the said date. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner has also approached this Court by way of CRM-M- 25724-2025 seeking quashing of FIR in question and, thus, there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to evade from the process of law. Learned counsel has argued that the Court below, vide order dated 10.12.2025, has, thus, wrongly cancelled the bail of the petitioner and bail/ surety bonds have been forfeited to the State, apart from issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner as also notice to the surety. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner had filed an application seeking recalling of the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2025 before the Court below, but the same also came to be dismissed, vide impugned order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) by the said Court.

2.1. Learned counsel submits that cancelling of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants 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, Ms. Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State of Haryana. She 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