IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 08.05.2026 Sandeep Bansal ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Briejnder Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Petitioner, namely Sandeep Bansal, aged 54 years, has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the order dated 13.03.2026 (P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Naraingarh whereby the bail of the petitioner was cancelled, his bail bonds were forfeited to the State, and non-bailable warrants were issued against him, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially granted bail after his appearance on 11.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) and charges were framed on 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-4), with the matter fixed for prosecution evidence on 24.02.2026. However, due to inadvertent miscommunication of dates by counsel, petitioner remained absent on 24.02.2026, and thereafter on 13.03.2026, when he was out of station at Varanasi. An exemption application was also filed but was dismissed, leading to passing of the impugned order.

Learned counsel further submits that petitioner’s absence was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to a bona fide mistake and unavoidable circumstances, and he had been regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court on earlier dates. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing, is mechanical in nature, and violates principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel also submits that petitioner has already approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, but his application was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated

04.05.2026 (Annexure P-6).

In these circumstances, petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 13.03.2026 (P-1), as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Notice of motion.

4. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioners by submitting that petitioners do not deserve any sympathy. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at their conduct, there is no surety that in future, petitioners would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial.

5. In number of cases, this Court has been experiencing the situation wherein, accused stopped appearing before trial Court in the criminal cases after being released on bail and thereby compelling the Court to issue non-bailable warrants by cancelling the bail already granted or such accused has been declared ‘Proclaimed Person’/Proclaimed Offender’. After examining the facts from several cases, this Court has formulated and applied a uniform method by satisfying itself that such accused would appear before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further, instead of delaying the proceedings to await the presence of accused.

Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case in which he is involved, and where it is realised that absence or prolonged absence of such accused is intentional to evade the process of law, he/she can be penalized after examining the nature of crime in which he is facing the proceedings and thereupon by imposing some cost amount subject to his/her capacity to pay.

Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it vis a vis the person/accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay. It is not expected that undue time would be devoted in securing the presence of absconded accused and also to waste energy by enforcing the special mechanism to arrest such accused.

Considering all such aspects, this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Honda @ Ashish