[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sumit Juneja vs State Of Haryana on 7 April, 2026

                     CRM-
                     CRM-M-18199-
                           18199-2026
                                                                                                           1




                     141
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                       CHANDIGARH

                                                         CRM-  18199-2026
                                                         CRM-M-18199-

                     Sumit Juneja
                                                                                               ....Petitioner
                                                                                                .Petitioner
                                                                 versus

                     State of Haryana
                                                                                             ....Respondent

                     Date of Decision: April 07,
                                             07, 2026
                                                 2026
                     Date of Uploading: April 07, 2026

                     CORAM:               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

                     Present:             Mr. Arpandeep Narula,, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                                                 *****

                     SUMEET GOEL,
                            GOEL, J. (Oral)

Present petition has been filed iled under Section 528 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking

quashing of the impugned order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-3)

3) passed by

the learned Chief Judicial udicial Magistrate, Panchkula (for short 'CJM'), whereby

application filed by the petitioner;

petitioner seeking cancellation of the order rder dated

10.12.2025 (Annexure P-2), P passed by the said Court Court, thereby cancelling

bail order of the petitioner and bail/surety bonds having been forfeited to the

State, including issuance of non-bailable bailable warrants against the petitioner and

notice to the surety; has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner

had been earlier granted the concession of bail by learned Court below and

was regularly appearing before the said Court Court.. Learned counsel has further

authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-

CRM-M-18199- 18199-2026

iterated that on 10.12.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the Court

below, which was not intentional nor deliberate, but such situation arose on

account of some technical glitch having been faced by the counsel for the

petitioner, before the Court below, in his legal case management software,

wherein, the case details were not reflected. It is further submitted that the

office of counsel for the petitioner, before the Court below, mistakenly noted

down wrong date and conveyed the same as such to the petitioner and, thus,

the petitioner could not appear before the Court below on 10.12.2025.

Learned counsel has further argued that no effective proceedings had

undertaken on the said date and even no prejudice was caused to the

prosecution and the applications seeking exemption from appearance of the

co-accused were also allowed on the said date. Learned counsel has further

argued that the petitioner has also approached this Court by way of CRM-M-

25724-2025 seeking quashing of FIR in question and, thus, there is no

intention on the part of the petitioner to evade from the process of law.

Learned counsel has argued that the Court below, vide order dated

10.12.2025, has, thus, wrongly cancelled the bail of the petitioner and bail/

surety bonds have been forfeited to the State, apart from issuing non-bailable

warrants against the petitioner as also notice to the surety. Learned counsel

has further argued that the petitioner had filed an application seeking

recalling of the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2025 before the Court below, but

the same also came to be dismissed, vide impugned order dated 18.03.2026

(Annexure P-3) by the said Court.

2.1. Learned counsel submits that cancelling of bail and issuance of

non-bailable warrants was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the

principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when absence of the

authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-

CRM-M-18199- 18199-2026

petitioner was purely inadvertent, which was neither intentional nor

deliberate. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner

unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the trial Court as also

join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear

before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate

therein, in accordance with law for expeditious culmination of the trial.

3. Notice of motion.

4. On the strength of advance service of copy of petition, Ms.

Priyanka Sadar Thakur, Senior DAG Haryana appears and accepts notice on

behalf of the State of Haryana. She opposes the petition in hand by arguing

that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has

misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing

before the trial Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to

why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have

perused the available record.

6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu

and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978

SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under:

"10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected.

11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public

justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the

authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-

CRM-M-18199- 18199-2026

function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible.

12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution."

6.1. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as

Gurcharan Singh vs. State (UT of Delhi) 1978 (1) SCC 118, has held as

under:-

"Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end."

6.2. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment tiled as

Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held as under:

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, "necessity" is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper

authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-

CRM-M-18199- 18199-2026

with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances."

7. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of

the case; especially the factum of prime object of cancellation of bail and

forfeiture of bail bonds being securing the presence of the accused, the

petitioner-accused having come forward himself to face trial, willingness

shown by the petitioner-accused to appear before the trial Court on each and

every date in accordance with law, the petitioner having submitted that he

shall cooperate for an expeditious culmination of the trial & there being no

tangible material brought forward to indicate likelihood of the petitioner to

interfere with the prosecution evidence; this Court is of the considered

opinion that the petition in hand deserves to be allowed.

8. In view of the prevenient ratiocination, it is ordained thus:

                     (i)                                       allowed;
                                       The present petition is allowed

                     (ii)              The impugned order dated 18.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) passed

by the learned CJM as also the order dated 10.12.2025 (Annexure P-2)

passed by the said Court, as well as all consequential proceedings are set-

aside subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial/concerned Court on

or before 21.04.2026, & shall furnish an undertaking that the petitioner shall

continue to appear before the trial/concerned Court on each and every date

of hearing. It is clarified that the trial/concerned Court shall be at liberty to

impose such other condition(s) upon the petitioner, as deemed appropriate

by it in the facts and circumstances of the case;

(iii) The petitioner shall deposit costs of `30,000/- with the

"Haryana Haryana Police Welfare fund, fund the Bank details whereof reads thus:

A/c No. 50100097073807 IFSC CODE -HDFC0000108

Sector -8, Panchkula

authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-

CRM-M-18199- 18199-2026

It is clarified that payment of the aforesaid costs and production

of receipt/proof thereof before the trial/concerned Court shall be condition

precedent. In absence of deposit of such costs, the present petition would be

deemed to be dismissed without any further reference to the Bench.