IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 01.05.2025 Sumanjeet Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Mudit Johar, Advocate and Mr. Manu Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the order dated 28.02.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by Ld. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby after cancelling the bail of the petitioner, non-bailable warrants have been issued against him, on account of his non-appearance in a case No.SC/10026/2024, titled as, “State v. Sumanjit Singh & another”, arising out of FIR No.75, dated 16.05.2024, under Section 379-B IPC (later on added Sections 34 & 411 IPC while framing charges), registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after false implication in the aforementioned criminal case, he was released on regular bail vide order dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. Thereafter, he was regular attending the Court proceedings.

3. Learned counsel further submits that during the course of proceedings, case was adjourned by learned Trial Court from 22.01.2025 to 28.02.2025, however, inadvertently, petitioner was informed the next date before the trial Court to be 01.03.2025 by his counsel. Thus, due to this unintentional fault, petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court on 28.02.2025, which resulted into issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest.

Learned counsel, thus, submits that absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, but due to the reasons, as mentioned above. 4. Learned Counsel further submits that now petitioner is ready to join the process of law, however, he be directed to be released on bail, on his surrendering before the Court and thus, be protected from arrest. In case, one opportunity is granted, petitioner also undertakes that he would not absent himself in future, without there being prior permission from the Court, and fully cooperate for early disposal of the trial.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he has misused the concession of bail granted by the Court. Learned State counsel by pointing out the irresponsible conduct of the petitioner, submits that there is every possibility that for the purpose of delaying the trial, he would again be absenting during the proceedings.

7. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in 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 is declared ‘Proclaimed Person’/Proclaimed Offender’, after examining the facts, this Court has formulated to apply 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 dev