Hardeep Singh v. State Of Punjab And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: May 29, 2026 HARDEEP SINGH ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Present:

Mr. Kulwinder Bhargav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Additional AG, Punjab.

***** SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (ORAL) 1.

Petitioner - Hardeep Singh, aged 59 years, has filed present petition under section 528 of BNSS for setting aside of the order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, SAS Nagar has summoned the petitioner through non-bailable warrants on account of his nonappearance. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after registration of FIR No. 0020 dated 07.05.2021, the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 15.07.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali. In compliance of order dated 15.07.2021,

the petitioner had joined investigation. After completion of investigation, challan was presented on 11.11.2025. However, no notice was served to the petitioner in regard to appearance before the Court. Learned counsel submits that petitioner acquired knowledge of finalisation of investigation, submission of challan and issuance of non-bailable warrants only on 15.05.2026 when Investigating Officer/SHO of the case, tried to contact the petitioner. 3.

Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's absence was not due to any mala fide intent or with the intention to evade the court proceedings. Counsel, therefore, prays that the petitioner be granted one more opportunity to appear before the trial Court. 4.

Notice of motion.

5.

Learned State counsel puts an appearance, and opposes the request of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner does not deserve any sympathy, because, he knowingly evade the proceedings before the trial Court. Learned State counsel further submits that looking at his behaviour, there is no surety that in future, petitioner would not be absent for the purpose of delaying the trial.

6.

After examining the facts, this Court has formulated a uniform method to ensure the presence of accused before the concerned Court, to enable it to proceed further instead of delaying the proceedings by awaiting the presence of accused.

7.

Intentional or unintentional default of the accused can be dealt with by examining the facts from case to case 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 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.

8.

Primary object of every Court is only to examine the commission of crime in question before it viz-a-viz the person/accused, who is subjected to such proceedings, and if possible justice be imparted at the earliest without unnecessary delay.

9.

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.

10.

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:

"paramount consideration of the Court is to secure presence of accused on each and every date for speeding up the trial for its final conclusion. Already Courts are flooded with so much litigation, resulting in slow pace of work, because of more than one reason. The required energy and manpower be used for expediting the proceedings of the Court, instead of running after the accused persons to get hold of them."

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.

11.

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

12.

In totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner can be given one chance to appear before the trial Court, so that proceedings may restart and continue in smooth manner.

13.

Accordingly, plea of the petitioner is accepted. Impugned order dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P-6) is set aside to the extent of issuance of nonbailable warrants, and he is directed to be released on bail, in the eventuality of surrender by him before the trial Court on or before 19.06.2026. The petitioner shall also furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 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. 14.

With aforementioned terms, present petition stands disposed of.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) May 29, 2026 JUDGE Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No