CRM-M-31017- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT (107) MAJOR SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Ms. Janya Sirhoi Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) 1. The instant 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking grant of anticipatory Section 22(b) of the Station Maur, District Bathinda. Simultaneously, prayer has been made for passing of an order that in case the bail of the petitioner is cancelled, then some time may be granted to him to avail legal remedies. 2. The aforementioned offence on the allegations that on 25.07.2023, he was found in conscious possession of 275 loose narcotic tablets. The petitioner had been extended benefit of regular bail on 08.09.2023 pass Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. However, he did not turn up before the Trial Court on 21.02.2026, due to which bailable warrants were ordered to be -2026 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision : MAJOR SINGH Versus PUNJAB HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate and Ms. Janya Sirhoi, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab *** MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.80 dated 25.07.2023 registered under Section 22(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Station Maur, District Bathinda. Simultaneously, prayer has been made for passing of an order that in case the bail of the petitioner is cancelled, then some time may be granted to him to avail legal remedies. The petitioner had been booked for commission of the aforementioned offence on the allegations that on 25.07.2023, he was found in conscious possession of 275 loose narcotic tablets. The petitioner had been extended benefit of regular bail on 08.09.2023 pass Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. However, he did not turn up before the Trial Court on 21.02.2026, due to which bailable warrants were ordered to be IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31017-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.05.2026 ... Petitioner ...Respondent HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Karandeep Singh Sidhu, Advocate and dvocate for the petitioner Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab has been filed by the petitioner under Section of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking 80 dated 25.07.2023 registered under Psychotropic Substances Act at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. Simultaneously, prayer has been made for passing of an order that in case the bail of the petitioner is cancelled, then some time may be granted to him to avail legal remedies. petitioner had been booked for commission of the aforementioned offence on the allegations that on 25.07.2023, he was found in conscious possession of 275 loose narcotic tablets. The petitioner had been extended benefit of regular bail on 08.09.2023 passed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. However, he did not turn up before the Trial Court on 21.02.2026, due to which bailable warrants were ordered to be under Section of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) seeking 80 dated 25.07.2023 registered under at Police Station Maur, District Bathinda. Simultaneously, prayer has been made for passing of an order that in case the bail of the petitioner is cancelled, then some petitioner had been booked for commission of the aforementioned offence on the allegations that on 25.07.2023, he was found in conscious possession of 275 loose narcotic tablets. The petitioner had been ed by the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. However, he did not turn up before the Trial Court on 21.02.2026, due to which bailable warrants were ordered to be AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-31017- issued against him. On 18.03.2026 non-appearance and bonds were forfeited to the State. Warrant of arrest were ordered to be issued against him. The petitioner filed an application bearing CRM-M-23233 of 2026 before this Court seeking quashing of order dated 18.03.2026. The above Bench of this Court on 28.04.2026, thereby setting aside the order dated 18.03.2026 to the extent to which non issued against him, Trial Court on or before 11.05.2026 and furnishing bonds. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of order dated 11.05.2026 showing that he has furnished fresh bonds which have been accepted by the Learned Trial Court. 3. Now the pe the ground that an application as extended to him on 08.09.2023, has been filed by the prosecution 20.01.2026 and is pending before the Learned Tr if the above-said application is allowed, then he will be taken into custody and, therefore, he has made prayer for either extending him benefit of pre or to pass order that at least 07 days notice shall be given cancelled by the Learned Trial Court. 4. Notice of motion. 5. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and has argued that since the petitioner has been extended benefit of regular bail in this -2026 (O&M) 2 issued against him. On 18.03.2026, his bail was cancelled on account of hi appearance and bonds were forfeited to the State. Warrant of arrest were ordered to be issued against him. The petitioner filed an application bearing 23233 of 2026 before this Court seeking quashing of order dated 18.03.2026. The above-said petition had been disposed of by Bench of this Court on 28.04.2026, thereby setting aside the order dated 18.03.2026 to the extent to which non-bailable warrants were o issued against him, subject to the petitioner’s surrendering Trial Court on or before 11.05.2026 and furnishing bonds. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of order dated 11.05.2026 showing that he has furnished fresh bonds which have been accepted by the Learned Trial Court. Now the petitioner has made prayer for grant of pre the ground that an application (Annexure P5) for cancellation of benefit of bail as extended to him on 08.09.2023, has been filed by the prosecution and is pending before the Learned Tr said application is allowed, then he will be taken into custody and, therefore, he has made prayer for either extending him benefit of pre or to pass order that at least 07 days notice shall be given cancelled by the Learned Trial Court. Notice of motion. Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and has argued that since the petitioner has been extended benefit of regular bail in this his bail was cancelled on account of his appearance and bonds were forfeited to the State. Warrant of arrest were ordered to be issued against him. The petitioner filed an application bearing 23233 of 2026 before this Court seeking quashing of order dated petition had been disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.04.2026, thereby setting aside the order dated bailable warrants were ordered to be surrendering before the Learned Trial Court on or before 11.05.2026 and furnishing bonds. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of order dated 11.05.2026 showing that he has furnished fresh bonds which have been accepted by the Learned Trial Court. titioner has made prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail on for cancellation of benefit of bail as extended to him on 08.09.2023, has been filed by the prosecution on and is pending before the Learned Trial Court. He apprehends that said application is allowed, then he will be taken into custody and, therefore, he has made prayer for either extending him benefit of pre-arrest bail or to pass order that at least 07 days notice shall be given to him, if his bail is Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and has argued that since the petitioner has been extended benefit of regular bail in this s appearance and bonds were forfeited to the State. Warrant of arrest were ordered to be issued against him. The petitioner filed an application bearing 23233 of 2026 before this Court seeking quashing of order dated Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.04.2026, thereby setting aside the order dated rdered to be before the Learned Trial Court on or before 11.05.2026 and furnishing bonds. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of order dated 11.05.2026 showing that he has furnished arrest bail on for cancellation of benefit of bail on ial Court. He apprehends that said application is allowed, then he will be taken into custody and, arrest bail to him, if his bail is Learned State counsel has advance notice of the petition and has argued that since the petitioner has been extended benefit of regular bail in this AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-31017- very case, therefore, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 7. On a perusal of the entire opinion that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner had been extended benefit of regular bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 8th September cancelled on 18th March granted to him by this court vide order dated 28th April No.23233 of 2026. He has furnished bonds in compliance of the above mentioned order. He is making prayer for grant of anticipatory bail while presuming that the application filed by the State on 20th January allowed, would result in cancellation of his bail. Since (Annexure P5) had been filed only f to the petitioner on 8th September order, on 18th March such, the application moved by the State is pres infructuous, and, of anticipatory bail on account of cancellation of bail granted on 8th September 2023. Secondly, when the petitioner has already been extended be regular bail and is deemed to be in constructive custody the question of grant of pre -2026 (O&M) 3 very case, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. It is, therefore, argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. On a perusal of the entire record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner had been extended benefit of regular bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 8th September, 2023. Since on account of his cancelled on 18th March, 2026. As discussed above, now regular bail has been granted to him by this court vide order dated 28th April 23233 of 2026. He has furnished bonds in compliance of the above tioned order. He is making prayer for grant of anticipatory bail while presuming that the application filed by the State on 20th January allowed, would result in cancellation of his bail. Since had been filed only for cancellation of benefit of bail as extended to the petitioner on 8th September, 2023, therefore, after cancellation of his bail n 18th March, 2026, the said bail had already been cancelled, and as such, the application moved by the State is pres , therefore, there is no justification for making prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on account of cancellation of bail granted on 8th September 2023. Secondly, when the petitioner has already been extended be regular bail and is deemed to be in constructive custody the question of grant of pre-arrest bail to him does not arise and no such plea can the present petition is not maintainable. It is, therefore, This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner had been extended benefit of regular bail by the Trial Court vide order 2023. Since on account of his non-appearance, his bail was discussed above, now regular bail has been granted to him by this court vide order dated 28th April, 2026 passed in CRM-M 23233 of 2026. He has furnished bonds in compliance of the above tioned order. He is making prayer for grant of anticipatory bail while presuming that the application filed by the State on 20th January, 2026, if allowed, would result in cancellation of his bail. Since, the application or cancellation of benefit of bail as extended 2023, therefore, after cancellation of his bail had already been cancelled, and as such, the application moved by the State is presumed to have been rendered therefore, there is no justification for making prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on account of cancellation of bail granted on 8th September, 2023. Secondly, when the petitioner has already been extended benefit of regular bail and is deemed to be in constructive custody of the Court, therefore, arrest bail to him does not arise and no such plea can the present petition is not maintainable. It is, therefore, This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner had been extended benefit of regular bail by the Trial Court vide order appearance, his bail was discussed above, now regular bail has been M 23233 of 2026. He has furnished bonds in compliance of the above tioned order. He is making prayer for grant of anticipatory bail while 2026, if , the application or cancellation of benefit of bail as extended 2023, therefore, after cancellation of his bail had already been cancelled, and as umed to have been rendered therefore, there is no justification for making prayer for grant , nefit of , arrest bail to him does not arise and no such plea can AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-31017- be stated to be maintainable. given to the petitioner is also of no consequence. Accordingly, finding no justification to allow the petition, the same is dismissed. 8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. 9. Since the main petition has been any, is rendered infructuous. 27.05.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 4 be stated to be maintainable. Similarly, prayer that iven to the petitioner is also of no consequence. Accordingly, finding no justification to allow the petition, the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. Since the main petition has been dismissed any, is rendered infructuous. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:- Yes/No Similarly, prayer that 07 days advance notice be iven to the petitioner is also of no consequence. Accordingly, finding no justification to allow the petition, the same is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on the merits of the case and shall not influence the outcome of the trial in any manner. dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Yes/No days advance notice be iven to the petitioner is also of no consequence. Accordingly, finding no It is, however, clarified that the observations made above shall not Court on the merits of the case pending application, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.05.29 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.