Nizam Singh @ Neezam v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.05.2026 Nizam Singh @ Neezam ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .......Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ

Present:

Mr. Narinder S. Kamboj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL) 1.

Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the impugned order dated 12.05.2026, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Moga, whereby the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled and bail/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State in a case FIR No.79 dated 05.06.2021 registered under Sections 307, 452, 148, 149, 427, 425 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, at Police Station City Moga, District Moga. 2.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court. He submits that on 27.01.2026, application for exemption from personal appearance of the petitioner was filed and it was allowed, due to which, he was not aware about the next date of hearing in the case and he could not appear before the trial Court on 12.05.2026, due to which his bail was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and he was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants. He submits that absence of the petitioner was totally unintentional and due to the circumstances beyond his control. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the trial Court and abide by all the terms and conditions, if any imposed by this

-2Court.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that the petitioner intentionally not appeared before the trial Court and thus, learned trial Court has rightly cancelled his bail.

5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that due to non-appearance of the petitioner, bail of the petitioner was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and warrants of arrest have been issued vide order dated 12.05.2026. The Court without going into the authenticity of the ground taken for the absence of the petitioner, deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the Court concerned and to face the trial in the present case. In these circumstances, when the petitioner is ready to join the trial and face the proceedings, the order dated 12.05.2026, is set aside, subject to deposit of costs of Rs.15,000/- with the Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for Old & Destitute People, Sector-15, Chandigarh, by the petitioner within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

6.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and file an appropriate application alongwith receipt of costs of Rs.15,000/- and the trial Court would grant him bail till the disposal of the case on his furnishing fresh bail/surety bonds. The petitioner will have protection from arrest for a period of ten days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

-3The trial Court is free to impose any condition it likes on the petitioner while admitting him to bail.

7.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the abovesaid direction, this order would be of no avail to him and the order dated 12.05.2026 will come in force and the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

8.

Petition stands disposed of in abovesaid terms. (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 29.05.2026 JUDGE sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned :

Yes/No Whether Reportable :

Yes/No