CRM-M- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 150 VIJAY KUMAR STATE OF CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SURYA P 1. Suraksha Sanhita P-10) passed by the learned ‘trial Court’ thereof, the the presence 2. 3. on behalf of 4. the petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court, however, due to -71568-2025(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH VIJAY KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA P Mr. Rajinder Kumar Singla, Advocate for Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J (ORAL) This is a petition filed under Section Suraksha Sanhita 2023, for quashing of passed by the learned Special Judge Mansa Court’ only, whereby the bail of petitioner the bail bonds of the petitioner have been presence of petitioner in the Court, his Notice of motion. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of respondent-State, and waives service. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court, however, due to unavoidable family function IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-71568-2025 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 13.01.2026 .....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 Bharatiya Nagarik of order dated 06.12.2025 (Annexure Special Judge Mansa, hereinafter referred to as the bail of petitioner was cancelled. As a result of the petitioner have been forfeited, and to procure his warrant of arrest was issued. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appears State, and waives service. by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court, unavoidable family function, the petitioner could not appear (O&M) 13.01.2026 .....PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT ratiya Nagarik (Annexure hereinafter referred to as As a result and to procure appears by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court, could not appear VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.01.15 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- before the learned trial Court had moved an app that the impugned order was passed. 5. was not present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the conditions imposed in bail order, was left with no option but to issue warrant illegality scope of interference in 6. liberty for the petitioner to an application for bail. requested for a direction to the learned trial Cour application for bail on the same day. 7. a direction to the petitioner one month application for bail Services Authority Mansa. T the bail application Vinod -71568-2025(O&M) 2 efore the learned trial Court on 06.12.2025 had moved an application for exemption, but the same was dismissed and the impugned order was passed. In view of above, once it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the conditions imposed in bail order, it is hereby held that was left with no option but to cancel the bail order, forfeit the bail bonds and rrant of arrest against the petitioner illegality in the abovementioned order, scope of interference in the impugned order At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty for the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court and move an application for bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further requested for a direction to the learned trial Cour application for bail on the same day. In view of above, the present petition is a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court one month. If he surrenders before the learned tri application for bail and deposit Rs.50,000/ Services Authority Mansa. The learned trial Court bail application on the same day. 06.12.2025. As per petitioner, his counsel lication for exemption, but the same was dismissed and In view of above, once it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the it is hereby held that the learned trial Court he bail order, forfeit the bail bonds and against the petitioner. Since apparently, there is in the abovementioned order, it is hereby held that there is no the impugned order. e, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought before the learned trial Court and move The learned counsel for the petitioner has further requested for a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the In view of above, the present petition is hereby disposed of with surrender before the learned trial Court within before the learned trial Court, moves and deposit Rs.50,000/- as cost with the District Legal he learned trial Court is directed to dispose of his counsel lication for exemption, but the same was dismissed and In view of above, once it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the Court he bail order, forfeit the bail bonds and no there is no e, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought before the learned trial Court and move The learned counsel for the petitioner has further t to dispose of the disposed of with within an as cost with the District Legal is directed to dispose of VINOD KUMAR ARYA 2026.01.15 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document