Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2026

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present: , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL, J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL SUMEET GOEL ***** ***** ***** ***** The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha (earlier Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) (earlier Section 482 Cr. P.C.) seeking setting aside/ quashing of the Section 482 Cr. P.C.) quashing of the impugned order dated 16.12.2025

16.12.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional Sessions ) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar (for short ‘Sessions Court’), Judge, Hisar to the , whereby bail granted to the petitioner has been has been cancelled and his bail/ surety are forfeited to the / surety bonds are forfeited to the State, and non been issued against the petitioner as also and non-bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner as also been issued against the petitioner as also notice to his sureties were issued, in case notice to his sureties were issued bearing SC No.558 of 2023 in case bearing SC No.558 of 2023 with regard to FIR No.274 dated captioned as “State vs. Dhanpat etc.” with regard to FIR No.274 dated with regard to FIR No.274 dated captioned as “ for commission of offence punishable under Sections 19.04.2023, registered for commission of offence punishable under Sections for commission of offence punishable under Sections 19.04.2023, registered 34, 379-A, 454 of IPC A, 454 of IPC, at Police Station City Hisar and District Hisar , at Police Station City Hisar and District Hisar.

2. petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the rlier granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide rlier granted the concession of had been earlier granted the concession of 2026 22770----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----22770 20262026 22770 22770 2222 order dated 29.07.2025 and was regularly appearing before the trial Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that on 16.12.2025, the petitioner could not appear before the Court below due to noting down of wrong date. Consequently, bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and bonds stands forfeited to the State vide impugned order. Learned counsel submits that issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner was harsh, disproportionate and contrary to the principles governing judicial discretion, particularly when absence of the petitioner was purely inadvertent, which was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the trial Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for expeditious culmination of the trial.

4. Notice of motion. On the strength of advance service of copy of petition, Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State of Punjab. She opposes the petition in hand by arguing that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, the petitioner has misused the concession of bail earlier extended to him by not appearing before the trial Court & no plausible explanation has been brought forth as to why the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the aforesaid date.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the available record.

6. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a Gudikanti Narasimhulu judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Gudikanti Narasimhulu Gudikanti Narasimhulu Gudikanti Narasimhulu 2026 22770----2026 CRMCRMCRMCRM----MMMM----22770 20262026 22770 22770 3333 and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 and others vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 429, relevant whereof reads as under: SUPREME COURT 429, SUPREME COURT 429, SUPREME COURT 429, ““““10. The significance and sweep of Article 21 make the deprivation of liberty a matter of grave concern and permissible only when the law authorising it is reasonable, even-handed and geared to the goals of community good and State necessity spelt out in Article 19. Indeed, the considerations I have set out as criteria are germane to the constitutional proposition I have deduced. Reasonableness postulates intelligent care and predicates that deprivation of freedom- by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice-to the individual involved and society affected. 11. We must weigh the contrary factors to answer the test of reasonableness, subject to the need for securing the presence, of the bail applicant. It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one remanded in custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be close to ours, the function of bail is limited, 'community roots' of the, applicant are stressed and, after the Vera Foundation's Manhattan Bail Project, monetary suretyship is losing ground. The considerable public expense in keeping in custody where no danger of disappearance or disturbance can arise, is not a negligible consideration. Equally important is the deplorable condition, verging on. the inhuman, of our sub-jails, that the unrewarding cruelty and expensive custody of avoidable incarceration makes refusal of bail unreasonable and a Policy favouring release justly sensible. 12. A few other weighty factors deserve reference. All deprivation of liberty is validated by social defence and individual correction along an anti-criminal direction. Public justice is central to the whole scheme of bail law. Fleeing justice must be forbidden but punitive harshness should be minimised. Restorative devices to redeem the man, even, through community service, meditative drill, study classes or other resources should be innovated, and playing foul with public peace by tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or committing offence while on judicially sanctioned 'free enterprise,' should be provided against. No seeker of justice shall play confidence tricks on the court or community. Thus, conditions may be hung around bail orders, not to cripple but to protect. Such is the holistic jurisdiction and humanistic orientation invoked by the judicial discretion correlated to the values of our constitution.””””

6.1. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as