← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/17857/2026allowed

Geetanjali And Another v. State Of Punjab

2026-04-06Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary3 pages

​-​1​-​ ​IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA​ ​AT CHANDIGARH​ ​151​ ​ ​ ​Date of Decision : 06.04.2026​ ​Geetanjali and Another​ ​....Petitioners​ ​VERSUS​ ​State of Punjab​ ​....Respondents​ ​CORAM :​​HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY​ ​Present:​ ​Mr. Kamal Narula, Advocate for the petitioners.​ ​*****​ ​AMAN CHAUDHARY J. (ORAL)​ ​1.​ ​Prayer​​made​​in​​the​​present​​petition​​is​​for​​quashing​​the​​impugned​​order​ ​dated​ ​24.02.2026,​ ​Annexure​ ​P-4,​ ​passed​ ​by​ ​learned​ ​Additional​ ​District​ ​and​ ​Sessions​​Judge,​​Fazilka,​​vide​​which​​bail​​of​​the​​petitioners​​have​​been​​cancelled​​and​ ​non-bailable​​warrants​​were​​issued​​against​​them,​​as​​well​​as​​order​​dated​​10.03.2026,​ ​Annexure​​P-5,​​whereby​​the​​proclamation​​proceedings​​were​​initiated​​by​​the​​learned​ ​trial Court.​ ​2.

​ ​Learned​​counsel​​submits​​that​​the​​petitioners​​were​​granted​​regular​​bail​ ​by​​the​​trial​​Court​​vide​​orders​​dated​​08.12.2023​​and​​30.10.2024,​​respectively​​and​ ​they​ ​were​ ​regularly​ ​appearing​ ​before​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​Court.​ ​Thereafter,​ ​on​ ​24.02.2026​ ​petitioner​​No.1​​could​​not​​appear,​​because​​she​​was​​advised​​to​​rest​​as​​she​​was​​unfit​ ​and​​petitioner​​No.2,​​could​​not​​appear​​as​​he,​​being​​her​​husband,​​was​​to​​look​​after​ ​her.​​On​​account​​of​​their​​non-appearance​​on​​24.02.2026,​​their​​bail​​was​​cancelled,​ ​bonds​ ​were​ ​forfeited​ ​and​​non-bailable​​warrants​​were​​issued​​against​​them,​​which​ ​were​​received​​back​​unserved​​and​​still​​vide​​order​​dated​​10.03.

​-​2​-​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​against​ ​them.​ ​Their​ ​non-appearance​ ​was​ ​neither​ ​intentional​ ​nor​ ​deliberate​​but​​due​​to​​the​​aforesaid​​bonafide​​reason.​​They​​are​​ready​​and​​willing​​to​ ​join​​the​​proceedings​​on​​or​​before​​the​​next​​date​​of​​hearing​​and​​pray​​for​​grant​​of​​one​ ​opportunity​​for​​them​​to​​surrender​​before​​the​​trial​​Court,​​even​​if​​the​​same​​is​​subject​ ​to costs.​ ​3.​ ​Notice of motion.​ ​4.​ ​Mr.​​Manipal​​Singh​​Atwal,​​DAG,​​Punjab,​​accepts​​notice​​on​​behalf​​of​ ​respondent-State​​and​​submits​​that​​the​​warrants​​of​​arrest​​have​​been​​rightly​​issued​ ​against the petitioners, as they had absented themselves from the proceedings.​ ​5.​ ​Heard.​ ​6.

​ ​The​​very​​purpose​​of​​issuance​​of​​warrants​​of​​arrest,​​is​​to​​compel​​and​ ​secure​​the​​presence​​of​​the​​accused​​to​​face​​trial​​and​​establish​​the​​rule​​of​​law,​​as​​also​ ​to ensure finalization of the proceedings.​ ​7.​ ​The​​present​​petition​​has​​been​​filed​​on​​25.03.2026​​and​​the​​case​​is​​now​ ​fixed​ ​for​ ​24.04.2026,​ ​which​ ​reflects​ ​the​ ​bona​ ​fide​ ​of​ ​the​ ​petitioners​ ​to​ ​join​ ​the​ ​proceedings.​ ​8.​ ​This​​Court​​in​​CRM-M-36490-2022,​​titled​​as​​Major​​Singh​​vs.​​State​ ​of​​Punjab,​​decided​​on​​15.09.2022,​​CRM-M-38277-2022,​​Surjit​​Singh​​vs.​​State​ ​of​​Punjab,​​dated​​26.08.2022​​and​​CRM-M-39000-2022,​​titled​​as​​Raghav​​vs.​​State​ ​of​ ​Punjab,​ ​decided​ ​on​ ​09.09.2022,​ ​had​ ​set​ ​aside​ ​the​ ​orders​ ​of​ ​non-bailable​ ​warrants.​ ​9.

​-​3​-​ ​interest​ ​of​ ​justice,​ ​so​ ​as​ ​to​ ​facilitate​ ​expediting​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​and​ ​for​ ​taking​ ​it​ ​to​ ​its​ ​logical end.​ ​10.​ ​As​ ​a​ ​consequence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​aforesaid,​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​orders​ ​dated​ ​24.02.2026 and 10.03.2026, Annexure P-4 and P-5, are set aside.​ ​11.​ ​The​​petitioners​​are​​directed​​to​​surrender​​before​​the​​learned​​trial​​Court​ ​on​​or​​before​​20.04.2026​​and​​deposit​​Rs.10,000/-​​(each)​​as​​costs​​with​​Nanhi​​Jaan​ ​Trust​ ​having​ ​its​ ​Account​ ​No.134101000271​ ​IFSC​ ​Code-ICIC0001341,​ ​Bank-ICICI​ ​Bank,​ ​Sector​ ​34,​ ​Chandigarh,​ ​whereupon,​ ​they​ ​be​ ​released​ ​on​ ​the​ ​same​​bail/surety​​bonds​​as​​had​​been​​furnished​​by​​them​​at​​the​​time​​of​​granting​​bail.

​ ​They​​are​​also​​directed​​to​​furnish​​an​​undertaking​​by​​way​​of​​an​​affidavit​​that​​they​ ​will​​appear​​on​​each​​and​​every​​date​​of​​hearing​​before​​the​​learned​​trial​​Court,​​unless​ ​specifically​​exempted​​by​​the​​Court.​​They​​shall​​not​​leave​​the​​country​​without​​prior​ ​permission​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Court.​ ​The​ ​trial​ ​Court​ ​may​​impose​​any​​other​​condition​​that​​it​ ​may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the present case.​ ​12.​ ​The present petition is accordingly allowed.​ ​13.​ ​Before​​parting​​with​​this​​order,​​it​​is​​made​​abundantly​​clear​​that​​in​​case​ ​the​​petitioners​​do​​not​​adhere​​to​​the​​aforesaid,​​the​​present​​petition​​shall​​be​​deemed​ ​to have been dismissed without any reference to this Court.