IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 09.04.2026 Hukamjit Singh @ Hukamjit Singh Brar ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present: Mr. Balkarn S. Aulalkh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

1. Petitioner, namely Hukamjit Singh @ Hukamjit Singh Brar, aged 43 years has filed present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 23.12.2025 (P-2), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, 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 had earlier been granted the concession of anticipatory bail and was regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court. However, due to unavoidable circumstances, petitioner could not appear before the Trial Court for the period from 26.08.2025 to 12.03.2026, as he had gone abroad London (U.K.). It is submitted that the petitioner was not fully aware of the legal implications of his absence. Consequently, vide order dated 23.12.2025, his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Counsel further submits petitioner has since returned to India on 28.12.2025 and is now ready and willing to appear before the learned Trial Court and join the proceedings.

Counsel further submits that absence of petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional, but was due to the reasons stated hereabove. In these circumstances, petitioners pray for the setting aside of the order dated 23.12.2025(P-2)

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 Handa Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (4) RCR (criminal) 765; Law Finder Doc Id # 20238111 considered similar plea of appearance, expressed at the instance of the accused, who failed to appear before the Court at appropriate time, and observed that:

“paramount consideration of the Court is to secu