[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navjot Singh Brar vs State Of Punjab on 20 April, 2026
CRM-M-21048-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
151
CRM-M-21048-2026
Decided on : 20.04.2026
NAVJOT SINGH BRAR
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate, with
Ms. Sagarika, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023
(corresponding to section 438 Cr.P.C.), for grant of anticipatory bail, in case,
FIR No.0181 dated 03.09.2025 u/s 318(4), 316(2), 61(2) and 238 BNS
(Corresponding to sections 420, 406, 120-B, 201 IPC), at Police Station
Baghapurana, District Moga (Annexure P-1), in pursuance to the order dated
30.03.2026, issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest for non-appearance on
one date of hearing i.e. 30.03.2026 and further seeking direction to learned
Trial Court to admit the petitioner on bail on his appearance on the next date
of hearing i.e. 08.05.2026.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was earlier
granted bail in the present case, vide order dated 16.03.2026 passed by this
Court in CRM-M-72921-2025, on merits, taking into consideration that the
dispute pertains to alleged financial transactions relating to investments in
properties made for business purposes by the complainant and petitioner.
3. It is further submitted that petitioner remained in custody from
13.06.2025 till 16.03.2026, i.e. for about nine months, and was released on
17.03.2026. Prior to his release, another FIR, i.e. FIR No.54 dated
28.02.2026 under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC (corresponding to Sections
318(4), 316(2), 61(2) of the BNS), was registered against him at the instance
of one Gurjant Singh Dhaliwal, levelling similar allegations pertaining to the
period 2019-20.
It is submitted that in the present case, challan had already been
presented on 15.10.2025, and petitioner had been regularly appearing through
video conferencing during his custody period, up to his release on
17.03.2026.
However, on 30.03.2026, apprehending arrest in FIR No.54,
petitioner was pursuing his remedy for anticipatory bail and, as such, could
not appear before the learned Trial Court. Consequently, learned Illaqa
Magistrate, for non-appearance on the said date, cancelled the bail bonds and
surety bonds of the petitioner and further issued non-bailable warrants of
arrest for 08.05.2026.
It is, thus, submitted that immediately after having been granted
regular bail in FIR Nos.107 and 181, another FIR No.54 dated 28.02.2026
was registered against the petitioner. In these circumstances, petitioner, while
pursuing his legal remedy for anticipatory bail in the said FIR, could not join
the proceedings in the present case, resulting in issuance of non-bailable
warrants.
Therefore, counsel submits that petitioner's absence from the
proceedings was neither wilful nor intentional but was occasioned due to his
apprehension of arrest in the third FIR, wherein similar allegations have been
levelled in relation to disputes arising out of financial investments made for
alleged business gains. It is further submitted that petitioner has already
undergone substantial custody of a period of more than six months in earlier
FIRs involving similar allegations, and the repeated registration of FIRs
reflects a pattern of hostility against him.
4. Further submits that petitioner is now ready and willing to join
the proceedings on the next date of hearing i.e. 08.05.2026, 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. Mr. Manjinder Singh Bhullar, DAG, Punjab, 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, 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.
8. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and
examined the relevant material available on record. The petitioner has remiss
in appearing before the Court only on one date, and consequently, on
30.03.2026, when order cancelling the bail and issuance of non-bailable
warrants of arrest, has been passed against him. It also cannot be left
unnoticed that within one month of the absence from the Court, and on
coming to know about passing of the order, the petitioner has moved the
present petition, showing his inclination to submit himself before the trial
Court.
9. In 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. Therefore, petitioner is directed to be released on bail,
in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court, on or before
08.05.2026.
The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the trial Court, 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 his conduct.
However, this order shall be subject to the payment of
Rs.20,000/- as costs, to be deposited by the petitioner in an Old Age Home of
the area, as may be decided by the learned Trial Court. The Trial Court shall
also specify the time frame within which such costs will be required to be
deposited, but not more than two weeks, failing which this order would not
be of any advantage to the petitioner.
10. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 20, 2026
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
