IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT Shinderpal Singh State of Punjab [ CORAM: Argued by SURYA PARTAP SINGH Suraksha Sanhita order dated 04.12.2025 (Annexure P Sessions Judge Fazilka, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. 2. of FIR No.43 dated 12.05.2020 nut-shell, the facts emerging from record are that trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21 Regulation) Act, 1957 3. being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only of anticipatory bail was accorded to him vide order dated 30.05.2020, and CRM-M-9464-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Shinderpal Singh VERSUS Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Argued by: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Kachura, Advocate Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG Punjab. ***** SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. This petition under Section 528 of Suraksha Sanhita, 2023’, has been filed by the petitioner for order dated 04.12.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge Fazilka, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. The abovementioned order has been passed in FIR No.43 dated 12.05.2020, Police Station Vairoke, District Fazilka shell, the facts emerging from record are that trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Develop Regulation) Act, 1957. As per the facts set out by the petitioner/accused, hereinafter being referred to as ‘petitioner’ only, in the of anticipatory bail was accorded to him vide order dated 30.05.2020, and 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-9464-2026(O&M) Reserved on :18.02.2026 Pronounced on : 28.04.2026 ..... Petitioner VERSUS ..... Respondent SURYA PARTAP SINGH , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Eklavya Darshi, DAG Punjab. ***** under Section 528 of ‘the Bharatiya Nagarik , has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of 3), passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge Fazilka, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. The abovementioned order has been passed in a case arising out Police Station Vairoke, District Fazilka. In shell, the facts emerging from record are that the petitioner is facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian of Mines and Minerals (Development and facts set out by the petitioner/accused, hereinafter , in the abovementioned case, the benefit of anticipatory bail was accorded to him vide order dated 30.05.2020, and (O&M) .2026 Petitioner ..... Respondent Bharatiya Nagarik quashing of 3), passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge Fazilka, hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’ only. a case arising out . In the petitioner is facing a trial for the commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of Indian ment and facts set out by the petitioner/accused, hereinafter the benefit of anticipatory bail was accorded to him vide order dated 30.05.2020, and GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document thereafter, petitioner, on that day, due to appear before the learned tri has been cancelled and his bail bonds Hence, the present petit 4. 5. 6. dispute with regard fact:- i. ii. iii. iv. v. CRM-M-9464-2026 (O&M) thereafter, the challan was filed and the trial commenced. petitioner, in the abovementioned trial a date, i.e. day, due to sad demise of mother before the learned trial Court and on account of his absence, his bail has been cancelled and his bail bonds Hence, the present petition. Heard. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there is no dispute with regard to factual matrix of the present case. It is an admitted i. that the petitioner is facing prosecution for the commission of abovementioned offence; ii. that the petitioner was accorded the benefit of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fazilka on 30.05.2020; iii. that on 04.12.2025, the petitioner was not present before the learned trial Court; iv. that no application seeking for exemption fro appearance of the petitioner was moved; and v. that due to absence of petitioner, the learned trial Court passed the following order:- 2 and the trial commenced. According to a date, i.e. 04.12.2025, was fixed and sad demise of mother-in-law of his sister, he could not al Court and on account of his absence, his bail has been cancelled and his bail bonds have been forfeited to the State. The record has been perused carefully. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there is no to factual matrix of the present case. It is an admitted the petitioner is facing prosecution for the commission of was accorded the benefit of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fazilka on that on 04.12.2025, the petitioner was not present before the that no application seeking for exemption from personal appearance of the petitioner was moved; and that due to absence of petitioner, the learned trial Court passed According to was fixed and law of his sister, he could not al Court and on account of his absence, his bail have been forfeited to the State. A perusal of record shows that in the present case, there is no to factual matrix of the present case. It is an admitted the petitioner is facing prosecution for the commission of was accorded the benefit of anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fazilka on that on 04.12.2025, the petitioner was not present before the m personal that due to absence of petitioner, the learned trial Court passed GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. 04.12.2025, two co Singh, had filed application for exemption and the abovementioned application wa his co-accused ‘Gurwinder Singh’ Court on the abovementioned date, their bail was duly cancelled by the learned trial Court and their bonds were forfei 8. Court, neither the petitioner was present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the conditions enshrined in the bail order/bail bonds, nor any application fo hereby observed that the learned trial Court CRM-M-9464-2026 (O&M) “An exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused Shiv Kumar and Kala Singh which is considered and allowed only for today for the reasons mentioned therein. Accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh are absent without any intimation and for their exemption have been moved by their Advocate. As such, their absence seems to be intentional and willful, therefore, Court has left with no other alternate except to cancel their bail orders. Accordingly, bail orders of accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh shall stand cancelled. Consequently, their bail/surety bonds are also cancelled and forfeited to the State. Let, warrants of arrest of accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh be issued for 12.01.2026. Notices to t issued for that date.” A bare perusal of abovementioned order shows that on 04.12.2025, two co-accused of the petitioner, namely Shiv Kumar and Kala had filed application for exemption and the abovementioned application was allowed by the learned trial Court. Since the petitioner accused ‘Gurwinder Singh’ were not present before the learned trial Court on the abovementioned date, their bail was duly cancelled by the learned trial Court and their bonds were forfei In view of the fact that on the date fixed by the learned trial Court, neither the petitioner was present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the conditions enshrined in the bail order/bail bonds, nor application for exemption was filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is hereby observed that the learned trial Court 3 An exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused Shiv Kumar and Kala Singh which is considered and allowed only for today for the reasons mentioned Accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh are absent without any intimation and nor any application for their exemption have been moved by their Advocate. As such, their absence seems to be intentional and willful, therefore, Court has left with no other alternate except to cancel their bail orders. Accordingly, bail orders of Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh shall stand cancelled. Consequently, their bail/surety bonds are also cancelled and forfeited to the State. Let, warrants of arrest of accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh be issued for 12.01.2026. Notices to their sureties be also A bare perusal of abovementioned order shows that on accused of the petitioner, namely Shiv Kumar and Kala had filed application for exemption and the abovementioned allowed by the learned trial Court. Since the petitioner and were not present before the learned trial Court on the abovementioned date, their bail was duly cancelled by the learned trial Court and their bonds were forfeited to the State. In view of the fact that on the date fixed by the learned trial Court, neither the petitioner was present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the conditions enshrined in the bail order/bail bonds, nor r exemption was filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is hereby observed that the learned trial Court was left with no option, but to An exemption application has been filed on behalf of accused Shiv Kumar and Kala Singh which is considered and allowed only for today for the reasons mentioned Accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh nor any application for their exemption have been moved by their Advocate. As such, their absence seems to be intentional and willful, therefore, Court has left with no other alternate except to cancel their bail orders. Accordingly, bail orders of Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh shall stand cancelled. Consequently, their bail/surety bonds are also cancelled and forfeited to the State. Let, warrants of arrest of accused Gurwinder Singh and Shinderpal Singh heir sureties be also A bare perusal of abovementioned order shows that on accused of the petitioner, namely Shiv Kumar and Kala had filed application for exemption and the abovementioned and were not present before the learned trial Court on the abovementioned date, their bail was duly cancelled by the In view of the fact that on the date fixed by the learned trial Court, neither the petitioner was present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the conditions enshrined in the bail order/bail bonds, nor r exemption was filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is was left with no option, but to GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document cancel the bail, forfeited the bonds before the Court 9. mention here that the petitioner in the present to sad demise of the learned trial Court. First of all, the abovementioned ground in itself does not appear to be so from the Court. For the sake of arguments existed a justified ground then it is expected from the petitioner to explain under what circumstances, he could not inform his counsel to move an application for exemption from personal appearance. In the absence of such explanatio that there is no justified explanation for the 10. observed that impugned herein, and that learned trial Court, when it cancelled the bail of the petitioner and forfeited his bail bonds due to his absence. 11. deserves dismissal. The same is directed that a period of one month from today, learned trial Court however, clarified that the learned trial Court in the exercise CRM-M-9464-2026 (O&M) cancel the bail, forfeited the bonds of the petitioner and ensure his presence before the Court by issuing warrants of arrest. With regard to above stand of the petitioner, it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner in the present to sad demise of the mother-in-law of his sister, he could not appear before the learned trial Court. First of all, the abovementioned ground in itself does not appear to be so pressing, which may justify from the Court. For the sake of arguments existed a justified ground for the absence of petitioner on 04.12.2025, even then it is expected from the petitioner to explain under what circumstances, he could not inform his counsel to move an application for exemption from personal appearance. In the absence of such explanatio that there is no justified explanation for the As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby observed that there is no scope for indulgence and interference in the order impugned herein, and that no error, whatsoever, has been committed by the learned trial Court, when it cancelled the bail of the petitioner and forfeited his bail bonds due to his absence. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. The same is hereby directed that if the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court a period of one month from today, and move learned trial Court shall dispose of the bail application however, clarified that the learned trial Court in the exercise 4 of the petitioner and ensure his presence by issuing warrants of arrest. stand of the petitioner, it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner in the present petition has pleaded that due law of his sister, he could not appear before the learned trial Court. First of all, the abovementioned ground in itself does which may justify the absence of petitioner from the Court. For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed that there for the absence of petitioner on 04.12.2025, even then it is expected from the petitioner to explain under what circumstances, he could not inform his counsel to move an application for exemption from personal appearance. In the absence of such explanation, it is hereby held that there is no justified explanation for the absence of petitioner. As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby there is no scope for indulgence and interference in the order no error, whatsoever, has been committed by the learned trial Court, when it cancelled the bail of the petitioner and forfeited the present petition being devoid of merit hereby dismissed. However, it is hereby petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court within and moves an application for bail, dispose of the bail application on the same day. It is, however, clarified that the learned trial Court in the exercise of its of the petitioner and ensure his presence stand of the petitioner, it is relevant to petition has pleaded that due law of his sister, he could not appear before the learned trial Court. First of all, the abovementioned ground in itself does the absence of petitioner even if it is assumed that there for the absence of petitioner on 04.12.2025, even then it is expected from the petitioner to explain under what circumstances, he could not inform his counsel to move an application for exemption from n, it is hereby held As a sequel to abovementioned observations, it is hereby there is no scope for indulgence and interference in the order no error, whatsoever, has been committed by the learned trial Court, when it cancelled the bail of the petitioner and forfeited the present petition being devoid of merit However, it is hereby within the . It is, of its GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document discretion shall be at liberty to impose penalty under Section 491 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 446 of CrPC) 12. disposed of, accordingly. 28.04.202 Gaurav Thakur CRM-M-9464-2026 (O&M) discretion shall be at liberty to impose penalty under Section 491 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 446 of CrPC), as per law Pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of, accordingly. 2026 Gaurav Thakur Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 5 discretion shall be at liberty to impose penalty under Section 491 of BNSS , as per law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand (SURYA PARTAP SINGH) JUDGE Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Yes/No discretion shall be at liberty to impose penalty under Section 491 of BNSS , if any, shall also stand ) GAURAV THAKUR 2026.04.28 16:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document