[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 April, 2026
CRM-M-8947-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
135
CRM-M-8947-2026
Decided on : 28.04.2026
GURINDER SINGH
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, and
Ms. Prerna Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Madaan, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)
1. Instant petition, under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (earlier
Section 482 Cr.P.C.), has been filed for quashing of the order dated
24.12.2025 (Annexure P-4), whereby petitioner has been summoned through
the 'non-bailable warrants' and proclamation under section 82 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, on account of his non-appearance in the following FIR:-
FIR Date Section(s) Police District
No. Station
62 28.03.2025 21(c)-29-61-85 of NDPS Act Model Hoshiarpur
Town
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was granted the
concession of regular bail, vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Court
of learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur (Annexure P-2), on the ground that the
FSL report regarding the recovered intoxicating powder had not been
received at that time.
Upon receipt of the FSL report, the recovered substance was
found to fall within the category of commercial quantity, as it contained 270
grams of diacetylmorphine (brown-coloured sticky and moist material).
Thereafter, challan was presented in the present case; however, petitioner
failed to surrender before the trial Court, and the matter was adjourned to
25.07.2025 for awaiting his appearance.
Due to the continued non-appearance of the petitioner, vide
order dated 24.12.2025, the trial Court issued non-bailable warrants against
him and also initiated proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. His surety
was also summoned.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's non-
appearance before the trial Court was neither intentional nor deliberate, but
occurred due to compelling family circumstances, and the same does not
amount to absconding or wilful evasion of the process of law.
Thus, learned counsel submits that in case, one opportunity is
granted for releasing the petitioner on bail, by protecting him from arrest, the
petitioner 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.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the
request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any
sympathy, because, he knowingly evade the proceedings before the trial
Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at his behaviour,
there is no surety that in future, petitioner would not be absent for the
purpose of delaying the trial.
6. In number of cases, wherein, accused stopped appearing in
criminal cases, the Courts are compelled to declare accused as 'Proclaimed
Person/Proclaimed Offender'. After examining the facts, this Court has
formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused before the
concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the
proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused.
Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt
with by examining the facts from case to case 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 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 viz-a-viz 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.
7. 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 on one date i.e. on 24.12.2025, when impugned
order has been passed against him. It also cannot be left unnoticed that as and
when the petitioner came to know about passing of the impugned order, the
petitioner has moved the present petition, showing his inclination to submit
himself before the trial Court.
8. 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. Impugned order dated 24.12.2025 (Annexure P-4),
whereby the petitioner was summoned through non-bailable warrants and
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside, and he is directed
to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial
Court on or before 12.05.2026.
The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to
the satisfaction of the trial Court. 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.
9. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
April 28, 2026
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
