IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 16.02.2026 Roshan Lal ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Sumit Dua, Advocate for the petitioner.

AARADHNA SAWHNEY , J (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing order dated 17.12.2025, Annexure P-8, passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge-IV, Jalandhar vide which his bail was cancelled, his bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State and his presence was sought to be procured through non-bailable warrants.

2. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner was present in the court premises on the date fixed but somehow, could not appear in the Court, neither could his counsel, who was out of station. It is further submission of learned counsel that the petitioner has been regularly appearing before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and has never misused the concession of bail granted to him, as also that the trial has not been delayed on any occasion on account of his (petitioner’s) misconduct. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to join the proceedings on any date to be fixed by this Court and prays for grant of one opportunity to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, DAG Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent -State and submits that the non-bailable warrants have been rightly issued against the petitioner, as he had absented himself from the proceedings.

5. The very purpose of issuance of warrant of arrest, is to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial. Request made by the petitioner seems to be genuine.

6. This Court in CRM-M-36490-2022, titled as Major Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 15.09.2022, while considering the bonafide of the petitioner and finding the reason for his absence justified, set aside the order issuing non-bailable warrants. In CRM-M-38277-2022, Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab, dated 26.08.2022 and CRM-M-39000-2022, titled as Raghav vs. State of Punjab, decided on 09.09.2022, the orders whereby non-bailable warrants were issued on account of his non-appearance, were set aside on the ground that the same was on account of having noted down the wrong date and failure of his counsel in not intimating the same.

7. In the interest of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and judgments referred hereinabove, the impugned order dated

17.12.2025, Annexure P-8, is set aside.

8. In view of the facts mentioned hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned within a period of ten days. He shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner would also submit specific undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings would not be delayed because of his conduct. The trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate in

MANOJ KUMtAhRe facts and circumstances of the present case.

9. Before parting with this order, it is made abundantly clear that in case the petitioner does not adhere to the aforesaid, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.

16.02.2026 ( AARADHNA SAWHNEY )

manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No