CWP-17829-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 149 KULDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Anurag Chopra, Additional A. G., Punjab. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed 28.02.2025 and Judge, Ludhiana against the petitioners in case FIR no. 307, 427, 148, 149 1959, Section Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 Act, 1951 and 1988 Ludhiana. 2. A perusal account of consistent non orders to remain present for bonds were cancelled and forfeited. The order reads as under: Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky Kalsi have al 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH KULDEEP SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Anurag Chopra, Additional A. G., Punjab. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed seeking quashing 28.02.2025 and 03.03.2025, passed by the Additional Judge, Ludhiana, whereby non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioners in case FIR no.19, dated 307, 427, 148, 149, 506, 188 IPC, Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of Section 51 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Section 127 of Act, 1951 and 1988, registered at Police Station A perusal of the impugned order dated consistent non-appearance by the petitioner orders to remain present for framing of charges, their bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited. The order reads as under: Accused Gurpreet Singh Khanna, Jagjot Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky Kalsi have al IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17829-2025 Decided On: 01.04.2025 .....PETITIONER(s) .....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Anurag Chopra, Additional A. G., Punjab. seeking quashing of orders dated , passed by the Additional District and Sessions bailable warrants of arrest have been issued 19, dated 08.02.2022, under Sections , 506, 188 IPC, Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, Disaster Management Act, 2005, Section 3 of the 127 of the Representation of People Police Station Shimlapuri, District of the impugned order dated 28.02.2025, shows that on the petitioners, despite specific of charges, their bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited. The order reads as under: Accused Gurpreet Singh Khanna, Jagjot Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky Kalsi have also not appeared. The case orders dated Sessions bailable warrants of arrest have been issued , under Sections , the Representation of People Shimlapuri, District , shows that on , despite specific of charges, their bail bonds and surety Accused Gurpreet Singh Khanna, Jagjot Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and so not appeared. The case Aman Dua 2025.04.02 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-17829-20 called several times since morning during pre lunch sessions, but none has appeared on behalf of abovesaid accused. It is 04:00 PM. Further wait of abovesaid accused persons is not justified. This Court on the last specifically directed the accused to remain present for framing of charges against them. The accused have flouted the orders. Accordingly, this Court considers it fit to cancel the bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Gurpreet Singh Khanna, Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky Kalsi. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the above named accused are cancel forfeited to state. Let non Singh Khanna, Jagjot Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky Kalsi be issued for date fixed Non-bailable warrants of arrest were not received back, fresh warrants arrest were issued for 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners should be granted Singh Bains, in CRM 4. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that petitioners are not entitled any indulgence from this Court as the order 24.03.2025, relied upon by them and for distinct reasons reads as under: 5. by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023. In case there was violation of any of the terms incorporated therein, it was open to the trial Court t bail granted by the High Court could only be cancelled by the High Court under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. after appropriate 2025 -2- called several times since morning during pre lunch sessions, but none has appeared on behalf of abovesaid accused. It is 04:00 PM. Further wait of abovesaid accused persons is not justified. This Court on the last specifically directed the accused to remain present for framing of charges against them. The accused have flouted the orders. Accordingly, this Court considers it fit to cancel the bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Gurpreet Singh Khanna, Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky Kalsi. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the above named accused are cancel forfeited to state. Let non-bailable warrants of accused Gurpreet Singh Khanna, Jagjot Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky Kalsi be issued for date fixed. bailable warrants of arrest were not received back, fresh warrants were issued for 10.03.2025, vide order dated Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners should be granted similar indulgence as given to the co Singh Bains, in CRM-M-16003-2025, vide order dated Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that petitioners are not entitled any indulgence from this Court as the order relied upon by them was passed under different circums and for distinct reasons. This is apparent from pa as under: . There is no dispute that the petitioner was admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023. In case there was violation of any of the terms incorporated therein, it was open to the trial Court to cancel his bail bonds and surety bonds, but the bail granted by the High Court could only be cancelled by the High Court under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. after appropriate called several times since morning during pre-lunch and post lunch sessions, but none has appeared on behalf of abovesaid accused. It is 04:00 PM. Further wait of abovesaid accused persons is not justified. This Court on the last date had specifically directed the accused to remain present for framing of charges against them. The accused have flouted the orders. Accordingly, this Court considers it fit to cancel the bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused Gurpreet Singh Khanna, Jagjot Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky Kalsi. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the above named accused are cancelled and bailable warrants of accused Gurpreet Singh Khanna, Jagjot Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky bailable warrants of arrest were not received back, fresh warrants of order dated 03.03.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners similar indulgence as given to the co-accused, Simarjit , vide order dated 24.03.2025. Learned State counsel, on the contrary, contends that the petitioners are not entitled any indulgence from this Court as the order, dated was passed under different circumstances apparent from paragraph 5 of the order, which There is no dispute that the petitioner was admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023. In case there was violation of any of the terms incorporated therein, it was open to o cancel his bail bonds and surety bonds, but the bail granted by the High Court could only be cancelled by the High Court under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. after appropriate lunch and post lunch sessions, but none has appeared on behalf of abovesaid accused. It is 04:00 PM. Further wait of abovesaid accused date had specifically directed the accused to remain present for framing of charges against them. The accused have flouted the orders. Accordingly, this Court considers it fit to cancel the bail bonds Jagjot Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky Kalsi. The bail bonds ed and bailable warrants of accused Gurpreet Singh Khanna, Jagjot Singh, Ravinder Singh, Pawandeep, Jagjot Singh, Goldy Aneja, Amit Kapoor and Ravinder Singh @ Ricky of Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners accused, Simarjit the , dated tances ragraph 5 of the order, which There is no dispute that the petitioner was admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023. In case there was violation of any of the terms incorporated therein, it was open to o cancel his bail bonds and surety bonds, but the bail granted by the High Court could only be cancelled by the High Court under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. after appropriate Aman Dua 2025.04.02 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-17829-20 application to that effect by the State, and not by the Court of Sessions. Accordingl jurisdiction to the extent it cancels the petitioner's bail 5. Heard. 6. As apparent on record, by learned counsel for the petitioner, cancelled the bail granted by this Court on account of non co-accused wh surrender and seek recall of the non case are different, and no in the trial Court cancelling the bail bonds and surety bonds mentioned therein. 7. In view thereof, petitioners to surren seeking recall of decided. 01.04.2025 Ad 2025 -3- application to that effect by the State, and not by the Court of Sessions. Accordingly, the order dated 28.02.2025 is without jurisdiction to the extent it cancels the petitioner's bail Heard. As apparent on record, the order learned counsel for the petitioner, was passed cancelled the bail granted by this Court on account of non hich was without jurisdiction; the surrender and seek recall of the non-bailable warrants case are different, and no interference is called for the trial Court cancelling the bail bonds and surety bonds therein. In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed to surrender before the trial Court seeking recall of order, dated 28.02.2025, (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? application to that effect by the State, and not by the Court of y, the order dated 28.02.2025 is without jurisdiction to the extent it cancels the petitioner's bail. the order dated 24.03.2025, relied upon was passed since the trial Court had cancelled the bail granted by this Court on account of non-appearance of the e accused was granted liberty to bailable warrants. The facts of the instant ference is called for with the orders passed by the trial Court cancelling the bail bonds and surety bonds for valid reasons stands dismissed with liberty to the der before the trial Court and file appropriate application , which will be expeditiously TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No application to that effect by the State, and not by the Court of y, the order dated 28.02.2025 is without relied upon d appearance of the to . The facts of the instant the orders passed by s e appropriate application y Aman Dua 2025.04.02 18:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document