IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25517-2026 Date of decision: 07.05.2026 KEWAL SINGH @ KAWAL @ LALA ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Pankaj Mahavir Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.

..…

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Panchkula in case bearing FIR No.225 dated 13.11.2024 registered under Sections 109(1), 132, 281, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 at P.S. Raipur Rani, District Panchkula, whereby, the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail bonds/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before learned trial Court. However, on 06.04.2026 the petitioner absented himself as the petitioner was suffering from spinal disc pain, he was having continuous lower limb pain and was unfit to travel. He further submits that the petitioner had also moved an application for exemption from personal appearance on 06.04.2026 along with his medical certificate, however, the petitioner’s application for declined. Subsequently, vide order dated 06.04.2026, learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner, his bail bonds were forfeited and his non-bailable warrants were issued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that non- appearance of the petitioner was not deliberate or intentional and thus, aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of unintentional non-appearance of the petitioner.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Chhina, Sr. DAG Haryana who is present in Court, accepts notice for the respondent-State and submits that the impugned order has been passed on the sole ground of the absence of the petitioner, however, it is not disputed by him that petitioner was already on bail and had been appearing before the trial Court.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

8. Whether the default on the part of the accused is intentional or unintentional depends on facts of each case. In the present case, the

on that date his bail was cancelled, bail bonds were forfeited to State

followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants. By filing the present

petition the petitioner has shown his intention to submit before the learned Trial Court.

9. The sole purpose of issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

10. Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be directed to appear before the trial Court, so that trial may resume. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 06.04.2026 (Annexure P-5) is set aside to the extent of cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants only, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court on or before 25.05.2026.

11. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings will not be delayed because of his condu