CRM-M-19919-2025 1 152 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19919-2025 Date of decision : 09.04.2025 Pardeep @ Bhola .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Ms. Rosi, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of impugned order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonipat, in case FIR No.50 dated 11.02.2020, under Section 25 of Arms Act and Section 398, 401 of IPC (Section 393 of IPC added lateron), registered at Police Station Rai, District Sonipat, whereby bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and forfeited the bonds to the State and issued the warrants of arrest of the petitioner, illegally, arbitrary and without considering the actual facts and circumstances of the case. Further prayer has been made for staying the further proceedings before the trial Court. 2. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the above said case, the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court. However, petitioner noted the wrong date of hearing and because of this reason, he remained absent from the Court on 04.10.2024 and his bail order was cancelled and warrants of arrest were issued against him. She submits that the petitioner is ready to join the proceedings and abide by the terms and conditions of bail, imposed by the Court. 3. Notice of motion. 4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. POOJA SHARMA 2025.04.09 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19919-2025 2 5. Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that the trial Court has rightly cancelled the bail granted of the petitioner who remained absent on 04.10.2024 without any valid reason. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the petitioner remained absent on 04.10.2024 and his bail was cancelled and bail bonds were forfeited to the State and warrants of arrest were issued against him. The reason for his absence was given that he noted down the wrong date of hearing. The petitioner is keen to join the proceedings. So keeping in view the abovesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of and the order dated 04.10.2024 is set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be deposited in the ‘Day Care Centre for Elderly Disabled in home for old & Destitute People, Sector-15 Chandigarh’ by the petitioner in one week from today. In case, the petitioner appears before the Court concerned within a period of 10 days from today and files an application for bail alongwith receipt of abovesaid costs, the Court concerned is directed to admit him to bail subject to its satisfaction and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. He will have protection from arrest for a period of 10 days from today. 7. Needless to say that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the abovesaid direction, he will have no benefit of abovesaid protection granted by this Court and order under challenge dated 04.10.2024 would automatically come in force. 09.04.2025 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) ps-I JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2025.04.09 16:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document