IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *****

CRM-M No.8543 of 2026 Date of decision : 16.2.2026 Date of uploading : 17.2.2026 Joga Singh ………….Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: Mr. A.K. Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab ---

SUMEET GOEL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking quashing of the order dated 28.7.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka, whereby regular bail granted to the petitioner was been cancelled and his bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited to the State in case FIR No.71 dated 4.7.2023, registered under Sections 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 27 and 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station Bahawala, District Fazilka.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner had been earlier granted the concession of regular bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide order dated 4.8.2023 and was regularly appearing before the trial Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that on the petitioner couldn’t appear before the learned trial Court on 28.7.2025 due to death in his relations. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner informed his counsel before the trial Court in this regard, who has filed application for exemption from personal appearance. But the learned trial Court has rejected the said application and the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through warrants of arrest. Learned counsel has further submitted that on 15.11.2025, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was taken up by the Duty Judge and case was adjourned to 23.1.2026. It is further submitted that on 23.1.2026, exemption application of co-accused Boota Masih was allowed by the trial Court and the case was adjourned to 28.4.2026. Learned counsel submits that issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner 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, Mr.

Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State. He 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 aforesaid date.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR

1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under:

“10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of b