Ripu Singh @ Rinpu Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 09.12.2025 Ripu Singh @ Rinpu Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Raman Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for quashing the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure P-4) vide which the non bailable warrants against the petitioner have been issued for his failure to appear on dated 03.10.2025 in case bearing FIR No.199, dated 10.09.2019, under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Samrala, District Khanna.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was falsely prosecuted in a case bearing FIR No.199, dated 10.09.2019, under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Samrala, District Khanna. He has submitted that after registration of the FIR, the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.12.2019 passed in CRM-M-529202019. He has submitted that after granting regular bail by this Court, the

-2petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. He has submitted that as the petitioner belongs to Jammu & Kashmir, he could not appear on one date, i.e. 03.10.2025 due to miscommunication with his counsel. He has further submitted that due to non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court on the date fixed, i.e. 03.10.2025, his bail order was cancelled and bail bonds & surety bonds were also cancelled and forfeited to the State. He has submitted that non bailable warrants of arrest were also issued against the petitioner for today, i.e. 09.12.2025. He has submitted that absence of the petitioner was bona fide and not intentional. He has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the learned trial Court and abide by the terms and conditions imposed upon him.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On the asking of the Court, Ms. Ramta Chowdhary, DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. She, on the other hand, has contended that bail order of the petitioner was rightly cancelled by the learned trial Court and non bailable warrants of arrest were issued against him, as he failed to appear in the Court despite orders.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6.

It is apparent that the petitioner was prosecuted in a case bearing FIR No.199, dated 10.09.2019, under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Samrala, District Khanna, in which, he was already granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2019. Due to non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned

-3trial Court, his bail order was cancelled and bail bonds/surety bonds were forfeited to the State. Non bailable warrants of arrest were also issued against the petitioner. The reason given by the petitioner for his absence is due to miscommunication with his counsel. As the petitioner is keen to join the proceedings, so keeping in view the abovesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 03.10.2025 is hereby set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with the Spinal Rehab Centre, Sector 28-A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh by the petitioner within a period of 07 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

In case, the petitioner appears and surrenders before the Court concerned within a period of 10 days from the date of certified copy of this order and files an application for bail alongwith receipt of abovesaid costs, the Court concerned is directed to admit him to bail subject to its satisfaction and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The petitioner will have protection from arrest for a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 7.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the abovesaid direction, he will have no benefit of abovesaid protection granted by this Court and order under challenge dated 03.10.2025 would come in force and the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 09.12.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No