Ajay Kumar Alias Lucky v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-48751-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-48751-2025 Date of Decision : 02.09.2025 AJAY KUMAR @ LUCKY .... PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present :

Mr.M.S.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. **** SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed for quashing of impugned orders dated 19.04.2025, 28.05.2025 and 02.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur whereby the Appellate Court had cancelled the bail/surety bonds of the petitioner and forfeited to the State and summoned him through non-bailable warrants of arrest. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders have been passed illegally and in violation of principles of natural justice as no prior notice was given to the petitioner before passing such adverse orders. It is submitted that the petitioner has been regularly appearing before the learned trial Court on all dates. The petitioner suffered a fracture in the heel and midfoot bones requiring bed rest. It is further submitted that non-appearance of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate and as soon as his health permitted, he appeared personally before the trial Court. The petitioner is a young man and not a proclaimed offender Anju Goel 2025.09.10 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-48751-2025 -2in any case. He is ready to furnish fresh bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepted the notice on behalf of respondents-State and opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner repeatedly failed to appear before the learned trial Court on the dates fixed. It is further submitted that the plea of illness does not justify his continued absence on many dates. It was also submitted that the petitioner is involved in six other criminal cases and has a history of criminal antecedents.

5.

Heard.

6.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. No case to interference in the orders passed by Lower Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 is made out.

8.

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 02.09. 2025 anju Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anju Goel 2025.09.10 16:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh