Lalit Bhatt v. State Of Haryana

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.05.2026 Lalit Bhatt ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present:

Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J (ORAL) 1.

This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad in case bearing No.CIS No.CHI/3089/2023 titled 'State of Haryana Vs. Lalit Bhat', arising out of FIR No.185 dated 05.05.2023 registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC, at P.S. Faridabad Central, District Faridabad, whereby, the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail bonds/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before learned trial Court. However, on 02.12.2024, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court due to miscommunication regarding the next date of hearing as neither the petitioner came present before the learned trial Court nor his counsel. Subsequently vide

-2order dated 02.12.2024, learned trial Court cancelled the bail of the petitioner and his non-bailable warrants were issued.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that nonappearance of the petitioner was not deliberate or intentional and thus, aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of unintentional non-appearance of the petitioner. 4.

It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

5.

Notice of motion.

6.

Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, AAG, Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice for the respondent-State and submits that the impugned order has been passed on the sole ground of the absence of the petitioner, however, it is not disputed by him that petitioner was already on bail and had been appearing before the trial Court.

7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

8.

Whether the default on the part of the accused is intentional or unintentional depends on facts of each case. In the present case, the petitioner did not appear on 02.12.2024 before the learned Trial Court and ultimately on 02.12.2024 itself his bail was cancelled, bail bonds were forfeited to State followed by issuance of non-bailable warrants. By filing the present petition, the petitioner has shown his intention to submit before the learned Trial Court.

-39.

The sole purpose of issuance of bailable/non-bailable warrants is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

10.

Considering the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be directed to appear before the trial Court, so that trial may resume. Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 02.12.2024 is set aside to the extent of cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants only, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court within two weeks from today.

11.

The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Besides, petitioner will also submit an undertaking/affidavit that he will keep appearing during the proceedings of the trial in future and the proceedings will not be delayed because of his conduct. 12.

It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, this order shall be deemed to be vacated. 13.

With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 25.05.2026 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No