[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Singh vs State Of Haryana on 29 April, 2026
CRM-M-23784-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
136 CRM-M-23784-2026
Decided on : 29.04.2026
Jitender Singh ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Jhanda, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Petitioner, namely Jitender Singh, aged 33 years, has filed
the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking
quashing of the order dated 19.03.2025 (P-6) passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala, whereby the bail of the petitioner
was cancelled, his bail bonds were forfeited to the State, and non-bailable
warrants were issued against him, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the
grant of anticipatory bail, the petitioner continued to appear before the
learned Trial Court. However, on account of his absence on 19.03.2025,
his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued against him.
3. Counsel further submits that, although not specifically
challenged in the present petition, the petitioner has also been declared a
proclaimed person vide order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambala. A photocopy of the said order
has been produced in Court today and is taken on record. The Registry is
directed to tag the same at the appropriate place in the paper book.
4. Without arguing at length, learned counsel submits that, in
fact, a settlement/compromise had been arrived at between the parties,
and therefore the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that his
presence would not be required before the Court. Consequently, he had
been seeking exemption from personal appearance.
5. Counsel also refers to the anticipatory bail order, wherein
the factum of compromise had been duly pleaded and noticed by the
Court, and was even acknowledged by the counsel for the complainant.
In these circumstances, petitioner prays for setting aside of
the order dated 19.03.2025 (P-6), as well as all consequential proceedings
arising therefrom.
6. Notice of motion.
7. 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.
8. 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).
9. I have considered the submissions of both sides and
examined the relevant material available on record.
10. In the totality of the circumstances, this Court is of the view
that the petitioner deserves to be afforded one opportunity to appear
before the learned Trial Court so that the proceedings may resume and
continue smoothly. Accordingly, the plea of the petitioner is accepted.
Impugned order (supra) is set aside to the extent of issuance of non-
bailable warrants against the petitioner, as well as the consequential
proceedings, including the order dated 27.04.2026 whereby the petitioner
was declared a proclaimed person. Petitioner is directed to appear before
the learned Trial Court concerned on 08.05.2026 or within 15 days from
today.
11. 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 his conduct.
12. However, this order shall be subject to the payment of
Rs.10,000/- 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.
13. However, it is made clear that in case an FIR under Section
209 of the BNS (corresponding to Section 174-A IPC) has already been
registered and the same is pending and not under challenge before this
Court in the present proceedings, the instant order shall be deemed to be
inoperative.
14. With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed
of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
29.04.2026 JUDGE
rashmi
Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
