IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 25.05.2026 SUNIL KUMAR ... Petitioner Versus (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:3)(cid:12)

... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY *****

Present : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Kachura, Advocate for the petitioner *****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of order dated 04.04.2026 passed by the learned Addl. SDJM, Guruharsahai, vide which the petitioner has been declared proclaimed person.

2. Learned counsel submits that after being summoned in a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the petitioner was granted regular bail, whereafter, he continued to appear regularly before the trial Court but for 14.01.2026, as he had gone out of station to earn his livelihood, leading to cancellation of his bail and forfeiture of bail/surety bonds. Thereafter, proclamation proceedings were initiated against him, however, without affording the mandatory period of 30 days, he has been declared proclaimed person vide order dated 04.04.2026. His non-appearance was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the aforesaid bona fide reason. He is ready and willing to join the proceedings and prays for grant of one opportunity for him to surrender before the trial Court, even if the same is subject to costs.

3. Notice of motion.

4. At the asking of the Court, Mr. M.S. Atwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the petitioner has rightly been declared proclaimed person, as he had deliberately absented from the proceedings.

5. Heard.

6. The very purpose of issuance of warrants of arrest, is to compel and secure the presence of the accused to face trial and establish the rule of law, as also to ensure finalization of the proceedings.

7. This Court in CRM-M-36490-2022, titled as Major Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 15.09.2022, 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, had set aside the orders of non-

bailable warrants.

8. Considering the fact that the absence of the petitioner was not willful or deliberate and his readiness and willingness to surrender and join the proceedings, in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties, rather his joining the proceedings would help in expediting the trial. This Court in light of the judgment referred to above being applicable to the instant case, finds that the ends of justice would be adequately met if the present petition is allowed.

9. As a consequence of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated

04.04.2026 (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)6) is set aside.

10. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 29.05.2026, subject to costs Rs.10,000/- to be paid to respondent No.2- complainant. On furnishing bail/surety bonds, the trial Court shall release him on bail subject to its satisfaction. 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 Court, unless specifically exempted by it. He shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. The trial Court may impose any other condition that it may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11. The present petition is accordingly allowed.

12. 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.

(AMAN CHAUDHARY)

JUDGE MAY 25, 2026 Rajender