IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19926-2026 Decided on : 16.04.2026 MANI SINGH . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus STATE OF PUNJAB . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Munish Garg, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

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 14.01.2026 (Annexure P-5), passed by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala, whereby after cancelling the bail of the petitioner, non-bailable warrants have been issued against him, on account of his non-appearance in the following FIR:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his involvement has surfaced only on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Sukhchain Singh. It is further submitted that there is no incriminating material available with the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence.

3. It is further submitted that, vide order dated 12.06.2024, challan has already been presented in the present case. Thereafter, vide order dated 06.08.2025, the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge. It is also submitted that, vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed by this Court, in CRM-M-21907 of 2025, petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail.

4. Counsel further submits that petitioner was not in a good health, and on 14.01.2026, he informed the clerk of his counsel appearing before the trial Court regarding his medical condition and requested that an application for exemption from personal appearance be moved on his behalf. However, the said clerk failed to file the application and instead incorrectly informed the petitioner that the same had been moved and the case stood adjourned to

06.04.2026.

It is further submitted that when petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 06.04.2026, he came to know that no such application had been filed on the earlier date, and consequently, non-bailable warrants had been issued against him and his bail bonds had been cancelled.

Thus, it is submitted that absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, but occurred due to the bona fide reasons stated here above.

5. Learned Counsel further submits that now petitioner is ready to join the process of law, however, he be directed to be released on bail, on his surrendering before the Court and thus, be protected from arrest. In case, one opportunity is granted, petitioner also 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.

6. Notice of motion.

7. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he has misused the concession of bail granted by the Court. Learned State counsel by pointing out the irresponsible conduct of the petitioner, submits that there is every possibility that for the purpose of delaying the trial, he would again be absenting during the proceedings.

8. In number of cases, this Court has been experiencing the situation wherein, accused stopped appearing before trial Court in the criminal cases after being released on bail and thereby compelling the Court to issue non-bailable warrants by cancelling the bail already granted or such accused has been declared ‘Proclaimed Person’/Proclaimed Offender’. After examining the facts from several cases, this Court has formulated and applied a uniform method by satisfying itself that such accused would appear before the concerned C