[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep vs State Of Haryana on 18 April, 2026
CRM-M-20815-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
115 CRM-M-20815-2026
Decided on : 18.04.2026
Kuldeep ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Petitioner, namely, Kuldeep, aged 35 years has filed present
petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of order
dated 23.09.2025(P-1), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Fast Track, Special Court, NDPS Act, Hisar, 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,has
been falsely implicated in FIR No. 0318 dated 01.12.2022 under Sections
21(b), 27 (later on added Sections 21(B)C, 61, 85) of the NDPS Act,
1985, registered at Police Station Bass, District Hansi, District Hisar. It is
further submitted that petitioner was granted bail by this Hon'ble Court
and had been regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court;
however, on 23.09.2025, he could not appear due to a medical emergency
and his ongoing treatment for de-addiction.
Counsel further submits that petitioner was admitted in the
New Search De-addiction and Rehabilitation Committee (Regd.), Tehsil
Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, and as per certificate dated 06.04.2026
(Annexure P-6), it has been duly certified that the petitioner remained
admitted in the said institution from 05.08.2025 to 05.10.2025. Thus, his
absence on the relevant date was neither intentional nor willful but purely
on account of his medical condition and treatment, which was beyond his
control. In these circumstances, petitioners pray for the setting aside of
the order dated 23.09.2025(P-1).
3. Notice of motion.
4. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the
request of the petitioner 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, petitioner 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 secure presence
of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial
for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so
much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of
more than one reason. The required energy and manpower
be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead
of running after the accused persons to get hold of them."
Again, this Court has considered the aforementioned similar plea
in case Veena @ Veena Devi v. State of Punjab (CRM-M-2206-2025,
decided on 16.01.2025).
6. I have considered the submissions of both sides and
examined the relevant material available on record.
7. In the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the
petitioner can be given one chance to appear before the trial Court, so
that proceedings may restart and continue in smooth manner.
Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order (supra) is
set aside to the extent of issuance of non-bailable warrants against the
petitioner. Petitioner is directed to appear before learned trial Court
concerned on 08.05.2026 or within 15 days from today.
8. Petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the trial Court/ Duty Magistrate, in case the bail bonds
have already been forfeited. Besides, petitioner would also submit
specific undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the
proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings would not be
delayed because of her conduct.
9. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed
of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
18.04.2026 JUDGE
rashmi
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
