CRM-M-40521 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (148) ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Dr. Deipa Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. AG, Haryana MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak in case arising out of FIR No.323 dated 16.09.2021 registered under Sections 120B, 153A, 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 505, 506 of IPC, whereby the bail of the petitioners h the State. Now against them returnable for 24.07.2026. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they had been extended benefit of before the Learned Trial Court. On 09.04.2026, they had given instructions to their counsel to move application for their exemption from appearance since the petitioner No.1 40521-2026 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision : 23.07.2026 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Dr. Deipa Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. AG, Haryana **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak in case arising out of FIR No.323 dated 16.09.2021 registered under Sections 120B, 153A, 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 505, 506 of IPC, whereby the bail of the petitioners had been cancelled and their bo the State. Now non-bailable warrants have been against them returnable for 24.07.2026. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they had been extended benefit of bail and had been appearing through their counsel before the Learned Trial Court. On 09.04.2026, they had given instructions to their counsel to move application for their exemption from appearance petitioner No.1 had suffered a fracture (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CRM-M-40521-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.07.2026 ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND ANOTHER ... Petitioners ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Dr. Deipa Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Addl. AG, Haryana The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rohtak in case arising out of FIR No.323 dated 16.09.2021 registered under Sections 120B, 153A, 323, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 505, 506 of IPC, whereby the ad been cancelled and their bonds were forfeited to have been ordered to be issued It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they had bail and had been appearing through their counsel before the Learned Trial Court. On 09.04.2026, they had given instructions to their counsel to move application for their exemption from appearance suffered a fracture and the petitioner No.2 AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.23 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-40521 was taking care of him. However, their counsel could not move such application before the Trial Court or appear there due to which bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State. It is argu counsel for the petitioners that their absence was not intentional but due to the reason narrated above. They are ready to join proceedings before the Learned Trial Court and to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon them. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Learned State counsel argue the matter. It is argued by learned State counsel that there is no illegality or infirmity in passed due to absence of the petitioners/their counsel. It is also argued that the petitioners had been avoiding their appearance since long by moving applications for exempting their presence on each and every d and, therefore, it is 5. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by the parties. 6. On perusal of the petitioners had been appearing b counsel, after they were extended benefit of bail. They were moving applications seeking exemption from appearance which had been allowed by Learned Trial Court time and again, and on 09.04.2026 their bail 40521-2026 (O&M) (2) was taking care of him. However, their counsel could not move such application before the Trial Court or appear there due to which bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State. It is argu counsel for the petitioners that their absence was not intentional but due to the reason narrated above. They are ready to join proceedings before the Learned Trial Court and to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has notice of the petition argue the matter. It is argued by learned State counsel that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order since the same had been passed due to absence of the petitioners/their counsel. It is also argued that the petitioners had been avoiding their appearance since long by moving applications for exempting their presence on each and every d and, therefore, it is stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by the On perusal of the record, it has been revealed that the petitioners had been appearing before the Learned Trial Court through their counsel, after they were extended benefit of bail. They were moving applications seeking exemption from appearance which had been allowed by Learned Trial Court time and again, and on 09.04.2026 their bail (2) was taking care of him. However, their counsel could not move such application before the Trial Court or appear there due to which bail was cancelled and bonds were forfeited to the State. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that their absence was not intentional but due to the reason narrated above. They are ready to join proceedings before the Learned Trial Court and to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed. has notice of the petition and is ready to argue the matter. It is argued by learned State counsel that there is no the impugned order since the same had been passed due to absence of the petitioners/their counsel. It is also argued that the petitioners had been avoiding their appearance since long by moving applications for exempting their presence on each and every date of hearing stressed that the petition does not deserve to be allowed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by the record, it has been revealed that the efore the Learned Trial Court through their counsel, after they were extended benefit of bail. They were moving applications seeking exemption from appearance which had been allowed by Learned Trial Court time and again, and on 09.04.2026 their bail was AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.23 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-40521 cancelled on account of their non find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, however, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are ready to appear before the Lea Trial Court to join the proceedings ready to abide by the terms and c Trial Court, the petition is disposed of by giving direction to the petitioner to surrender before th furnishing fresh Learned Trial Court and on doing so, they Trial Court. Since it has been noticed that the petitioner appearing before the Learned Trial Court on most of the dates of hearing and had been seeking exemption from appearance, therefore, Learned Trial Court is directed to see that during further trial their presence is not exempted on frivolous 7. A copy of 23.07.2026 Amit Sharma 40521-2026 (O&M) (3) cancelled on account of their non-appearance. Though this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, however, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are ready to appear before the Lea Trial Court to join the proceedings before the Learned Trial Court and ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed upon them Trial Court, the petition is disposed of by giving direction to the petitioner to surrender before the Trial Court on the date fixed subject to their furnishing fresh personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfac Learned Trial Court and on doing so, they shall be admitted to bail by the Since it has been noticed that the petitioner appearing before the Learned Trial Court on most of the dates of hearing and had been seeking exemption from appearance, therefore, Learned Trial Court is directed to see that during further trial their presence is not exempted on frivolous grounds. A copy of this order be served through Bench Secretary. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No (3) appearance. Though this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, however, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are ready to appear before the Learned before the Learned Trial Court and are onditions to be imposed upon them by the Trial Court, the petition is disposed of by giving direction to the petitioners on the date fixed subject to their personal as well as surety bonds to the satisfaction of shall be admitted to bail by the Since it has been noticed that the petitioners have not been appearing before the Learned Trial Court on most of the dates of hearing and had been seeking exemption from appearance, therefore, Learned Trial Court is directed to see that during further trial their presence is not this order be served through Bench Secretary. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No AMIT SHARMA 2026.07.23 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.