CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 162 SANJAY SAINI STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 06.01.2026 Magistrate First Class By virtue of abovementioned ord result thereof, the procure his 2. 3. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab behalf of respondent/State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby -13674-2026(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH SANJAY SAINI VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section 528 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’, seeking 06.01.2026 (Annexure P-14) passed by the Magistrate First Class Bathinda, hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ By virtue of abovementioned order, the bail of petitioner result thereof, the bail bonds of the petitioner have been his presence in the Court, his warrant Notice of motion. Since advance notice has already be Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab behalf of respondent/State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-13674-2026 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 04.05.2026 .....PETITIONER VERSUS .....RESPONDENT SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. This is a petition filed under Section 528 of ‘the Bharatiya ’, seeking for quashing of order dated ) passed by the Court of learned Judicial hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. er, the bail of petitioner was cancelled. As a of the petitioner have been forfeited and to warrants of arrest were issued. Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby (O&M) .2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT Bharatiya for quashing of order dated Judicial only. As a forfeited and to en served upon the State, accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.04 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- dispensed with. However, n learned State counsel has opted to orally oppose the present petition 4. 5. the petitioner was regularly appearing According to learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court withdrew his Power of Attorney counsel and the case was adjourned to 06.01.2026. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, on 06.01.2026, DLSA for availing the service of called, he did not put in abovementioned circumstances, the impugned order was passed, which deserves to be quashed. 6. 7. note that Court on 06.01.2026 and thus, breached order. In such a situation, to cancel the bail ord against the petitioner. Since apparently, there is no illegality in the abovementioned order, or interference in the impugned order. -13674-2026(O&M) dispensed with. However, no formal reply has been filed by the State and the ed State counsel has opted to orally oppose the present petition Heard. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was regularly appearing According to learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court withdrew his Power of Attorney and therefore, petitioner sought time to engage counsel and the case was adjourned to 06.01.2026. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, on 06.01.2026, the petitioner was sitting in the office of DLSA for availing the service of legal aid counsel called, he did not put in appearance before the learned trial Court and abovementioned circumstances, the impugned order was passed, which deserves to be quashed. The record has been perused carefully. With regard to fact situation of present case, it is relevant note that admittedly the petitioner was not present on 06.01.2026 and thus, breached order. In such a situation, the learned trial Court was left with no option but to cancel the bail order, forfeit the bail bonds and issue warrant against the petitioner. Since apparently, there is no illegality in the abovementioned order, it is hereby held that interference in the impugned order. 2 formal reply has been filed by the State and the ed State counsel has opted to orally oppose the present petition. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on 12.12.2025, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court withdrew and therefore, petitioner sought time to engage new counsel and the case was adjourned to 06.01.2026. As per learned counsel the petitioner was sitting in the office of legal aid counsel and when his case was appearance before the learned trial Court and in the abovementioned circumstances, the impugned order was passed, which The record has been perused carefully. With regard to fact situation of present case, it is relevant not present before the learned trial on 06.01.2026 and thus, breached the conditions imposed in the bail the learned trial Court was left with no option but he bail bonds and issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Since apparently, there is no illegality in the it is hereby held that there is no scope for indulgence formal reply has been filed by the State and the It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that before the learned trial Court. on 12.12.2025, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court withdrew new counsel and the case was adjourned to 06.01.2026. As per learned counsel the petitioner was sitting in the office of and when his case was in the abovementioned circumstances, the impugned order was passed, which With regard to fact situation of present case, it is relevant to before the learned trial tions imposed in the bail the learned trial Court was left with no option but of arrest against the petitioner. Since apparently, there is no illegality in the indulgence GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.04 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- 8 that the present petition Accordingly, the same is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within surrenders before the learned trial Court within the stipulated period and moves an application for bail, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail application within two days. It is, however, clarified that the learned trial Court in the exercise of its discretion shall be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody and/or impose penalty under Section 491 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 446 of CrPC) 9. Gaurav Thakur -13674-2026(O&M) As a sequel to abovementioned observations the present petition is devoid of merit Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within surrenders before the learned trial Court within the stipulated period and moves an application for bail, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail application within two days. It is, however, clarified that the learned rial Court in the exercise of its discretion shall be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody and/or impose penalty under Section 491 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 446 of CrPC), as per law 3 sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby held devoid of merit, and deserves dismissal. dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within one month. If he surrenders before the learned trial Court within the stipulated period and moves an application for bail, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail application within two days. It is, however, clarified that the learned rial Court in the exercise of its discretion shall be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody and/or impose penalty under Section 491 of BNSS , as per law. it is hereby held deserves dismissal. However, the petitioner is one month. If he surrenders before the learned trial Court within the stipulated period and moves an application for bail, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail application within two days. It is, however, clarified that the learned rial Court in the exercise of its discretion shall be at liberty to take the petitioner into custody and/or impose penalty under Section 491 of BNSS GAURAV THAKUR 2026.05.04 15:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document