204-U Date of Decision: 23.02.2026 Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AARADHNA SAWHNEY Present: Mr. Karandeep Singh Dargan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Thapar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

***

AARADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner, an accused in case FIR No.121 dated 18.08.2022 registered against him, at Police Station Sadar Jalalabad, Distt. Fazilka, for commission of offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 21 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, has filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking quashing of the orders dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) and dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide which on account of petitioner’s non- appearance, his bail was cancelled, personal bonds, surety bonds were also cancelled and forfeited to state. His presence was sought to be procured through non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings were initiated, respectively.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was falsely implicated in the aforesaid criminal case. Learned JMIC, Jalalabad, vide order dated 25.08.2022 (Annexure P-4), granted bail to petitioner.

Pursuant thereto, he had been regularly appearing before the Court concerned. On 27.11.2025, however, petitioner could not appear before the Court. On account of his non-appearance, impugned order was passed. Thereafter, his(p) presence was again sought to be secured through non-bailable warrants for the next date of hearing i.e. 03.01.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lenient view be taken in favour of the petitioner by extending him the concession of bail as his absence was not intentional but was on account of the fact that he was unaware that the case had been transferred to the District Court, Fazilka from the trial Court, Jalalabad. Under this mistaken impression, petitioner could not appear before the Court concerned. With this backdrop, learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned orders dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) and 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned trial Court, assuring that petitioner undertakes to surrender before the Court concerned immediately.

4. Heard. Documents on record perused.

5. 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.

6. Moreover, the primary purpose of issuing a non-bailable warrant is to secure the appearance of the accused, especially when they fail to appear after being served a summons or if they are likely to abscond. Courts issue NBWs as a last resort, after first attempting to secure attendance through summons and bailable warrants.

7. In the interest of justice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and judgments referred hereinabove, the impugned orders dated 27.11.2025 (Annexure P-1) and 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-2), are set aside. Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned on 20.03.2026 i.e. the date already fixed. On his appearance before the Court concerned, he be admitted to bail on his furnishing fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is also directed to furnish an undertaking by way of an affidavit that he will appear on each and every date of hearing before the trial Court, unless specifically exempted by the Court. He shall not leave the countr