IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 12.02.2026 Sonu . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

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

Mr. Vinay Malhotra, 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 09.01.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by Ld. Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur, whereby after cancelling the bail of the petitioner, non-bailable warrants have been issued against him, on account of his non-appearance in a case FIR No. 22, dated 30.01.2022, under Section 21 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Special Task Force, Mohali (having jurisdiction of District Ferozepur), District Ferozepur.

2. On account of affecting of recovery of 10 grams of ‘heroin’ from the possession of the petitioner, aforementioned FIR was registered against the petitioner on 30.01.2022. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.03.2022, passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Feroepur, petitioner was granted the concession of interim-regular bail in the aforementioned case. In the present case, after completion of investigation, challan was submitted before the learned trial Court on 01.06.2022.

However, despite filing of challan, petitioner sought exemption from appearance on medical grounds from 25.08.2022 till 03.12.2024, and same was granted to him. However, on 09.01.2025, petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and on that account his bail was cancelled and non-

bailable warrans of arrest were issued against him.

Besides, during arguments, learned counsel also apprise the Court that one more case under the NDPS Act, i.e., under Section 21/61/85 of NDPS Act was registered against him vide FIR No.81, dated 01.04.2024, registered at P.S. Sadar Kharar, District SAS Nagar. However, in that case, petitioner is already enlarged on bail.

3. Learned counsel further submits that on coming to know the factum of issuing of non-bailable warrants of arrest and cancellation of bail, petitioner has immediately approach this Court. Learned counsel, thus, submits that absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the reasons, as mentioned above.

4. 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.

5. Notice of motion.

6. 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.

7. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in 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 is declared ‘Proclaimed Person’/Proclaimed Offender’, after examining the facts, this Court has formulated to apply a uniform method by satisfying itself that such accused would appear before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings to await the presence of accused.

Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case in which he is involved, and where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentional to evade the process of law, he/sh