##PAGE1##

163 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-16957-2026

Date of decision: 27.03.2026

RASHPAL SINGH ...PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL)

1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for setting aside of order dated 21.01.2026 & 07.02.2026 (Annexure P-09 & P-10, respectively), passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby due to failure on the part of petitioner to furnish bail bond & surety bond in terms of order dated 23.12.2025 passed by this Court, fresh non bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner for 07.02.2026 alongwith consequent order dated 07.03.2026 whereby proclamation proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.80 dated 16.06.2017 registered under

Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 IPC read with Section 148 & 149 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the final arguments in the trial already stand addressed, however, from 11.03.2024 to 31.10.2025, the matter was kept pending until the passing of impugned orders whereby non bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner despite the

SONIA PURI

2026.04.09 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-16957-2026 -2-

fact that he had duly appeared on the previous dates before the trial Court. Even so, the trial Court directly proceeded to issue non bailable warrants against the petitioner vide its impugned order dated 21.01.2026 and 07.02.2026 and proclamation proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. on 07.03.2026, which is contrary to settled law; that even otherwise the petitioner had no intention of not putting in appearance before the trial Court and has never misused the concession of bail which was granted to him way back on 04.06.2019; that he is willing to join the proceedings. Learned counsel confined his prayer to the limited extent that the petitioner is ready to surrender himself before learned trial Court and prayed

that the petitioner be not arrested by the police.

3. The nature of order this Court proposes to pass, no notice is

required to be issued to the respondent.

4. Heard, and paper book perused.

5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier vide order dated 23.12.2025 passed by this Court, the petitioner was granted an opportunity & was directed to surrender before the trial Court within a period of two weeks i.e. upto 06.01.2026, however the petitioner failed to do so; further trial Court issued non bailable warrants on two occasions vide order dated 21.01.2026 & 07.02.2026 and despite that too, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court and has now approached this Court for quashing of the same. Also, this is the second petition filed under Section 528 of the BNSS for quashing of impugned orders which is not maintainable on similar

set of grounds.

SONIA PURI

2026.04.09 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-16957-2026 -3-

In view of above, this Court does not find merit in the present

case and the same is hereby dismissed.

(SUBHAS MEHLA)

27.03.2026 JUDGE Sonia Puri

(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

SONIA PURI

2026.04.09 18:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document