IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sr.No.127 CRM-M-8555-2026 Decided on : 13.02.2026 Karam Singh alias Karma ...... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL ***

Present : Mr. Rajesh Bhatheja, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL , J (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 14.01.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Moga in case FIR No.81 dated 23.09.2021, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Pollice Station Ajitwal, District Moga vide which the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail bonds/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. However, on 10.12.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court and the said Court was constrained to issue non-bailable warrants of arrest for 14.01.2026. On 14.01.2026, again the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner, forfeited his bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that non- appearance of the petitioner was not deliberate or intentional but because the petitioner had noted the wrong date of hearing and thus, aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of unintentional non-appearance of the petitioner.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Ravinder Singh, DAG Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice for the respondent-State and submits that the impugned order has been passed on the sole ground of the absence of the petitioner, however, it is not disputed by him that petitioner was already on bail and had been appearing before the trial Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

8. Whether the default on the part of the accused is intentional or unintentional depends on facts of each case. In the present case, the petitioner did not appear on 10.12.2025 and 14.01.2026 and ultimately on 14.01.2026, his bail was cancelled and bail bonds were forfeited to State followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants. By filing the present petition the petitioner has shown his intention to submit before the learned Trial Court.

9. The sole purpose of issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants is to secure presence of the petitioner before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

10. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be directed to appear before the trial Court, so that trial may resume. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 14.01.2026 is set aside to the extent of cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants only, and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court on or before 28.02.2026, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be deposited by the petitioner in Poor Patients Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh.

11. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in f