IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 17.04.2026 Arshdeep Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Sandeep Lather, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Petitioner, namely, Arshdeep Singh, aged 22 years has filed present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 21.01.2026 (P-4), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar Mohali, whereby bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and the bail bonds have been forfeited to the State, and non-

bailable warrants have been issued against him

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was implicated in FIR No. 247 dated 27.08.2023 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 382, 384, 473, 148, 149 IPC (corresponding to Sections 307, 308(2), 341(2), 191(3), 190 of the BNS, 2023) and Sections 25(6) and 25(7) of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, and was thereafter arrested and released on regular bail, and had been regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court on each and every date of hearing.

It is further submitted that the petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court on account of compelling circumstances, as he was allegedly assaulted and threatened at Punjabi University, Patiala in September 2025, and thereafter remained unwell and was undergoing treatment, including de-addiction treatment at Government Medical College and Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, from 07.01.2026 to

03.02.2026, as reflected in the discharge slip (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel further submits that despite the petitioner’s absence being bona fide and due to medical reasons, the learned Trial Court proceeded to cancel his bail bonds and surety bonds vide impugned order dated 21.01.2026, without affording any effective opportunity of hearing, which has resulted in grave prejudice to the petitioner.

Counsel further submits that absence of petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional, but was due to the reasons stated hereabove. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is now ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court and join the proceedings. In these circumstances, petitioners pray for the setting aside of the order dated 21.01.2026(P-4).

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 im