Gurbachan Singh @ Gill vs State of Haryana

SANJAY VASHISTH, J.

Petitioner, namely Bhinder Singh, aged 31 years, has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking quashing of the order dated 19.02.2026 (P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is facing trial in FIR No. 230 dated 21.09.2019, under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Kalanwali, District Sirsa, pertaining to alleged recovery of 23 grams of heroin/chitta from a pick-up vehicle. Petitioner was arrested in the present case and was granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide order dated 05.11.2019. Challan was presented on 19.11.2019 and charges under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act were framed on 26.03.2021. Petitioner remained on bail for more than six years without any allegation of misuse of the concession or interference with the trial.

It is submitted that on 19.02.2026, petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court due to an inadvertent mistake in noting the date of hearing, and his absence was neither intentional nor deliberate. On the same day, learned Trial Court cancelled his bail and forfeited his bail bonds, and consequently vide impugned order dated 19.02.2026(Annexure P-4), learned Trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner, forfeited his bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants against him.

Learned counsel further submits that the absence of the petitioner was neither wilful nor intentional and there was never any intention on his part to evade the process of law or delay the trial proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear/surrender before the learned Trial Court and undertakes to participate in the proceedings on each and every date of hearing.

In these circumstances, petitioner prays for setting aside of the order dated 19.02.2026 (P-4), as well as all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

Notice of motion.

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, petitioner would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial.

Learned State counsel further submits that proceedings for declaring the petitioner as proclaimed offenders are underway; however, as per instructions, the petitioner has not yet been declared as proclaimed offenders/proclaimed persons.

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:

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).

I have considered the submissions of both sides and examined the relevant material available on record.

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. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court concerned on 31.08.2026 or within 15 days from today.

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.

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.

With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of.