IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (312) Dharmender State of Haryana CORAM : Present: JASJIT SINGH BEDI 1. 2023 is for quashing of order dated Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby the bail of petitioner was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and he was ordered to be summoned through non in case FIR No.88 dated 27.05.2020 under Section 452 IPC (149, 149, 363 a later on) at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Dharmender Singh Versus State of Haryana CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr.Rahul Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner (s). Mr.Shiva Khurmi, DAG, Haryana. JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral) The prayer in the present petition under Section is for quashing of order dated 12.03 Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby the bail of petitioner was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and he was ordered to be summoned through non in case FIR No.88 dated 27.05.2020 under Section 452 IPC (149, 149, 363 and 366 IPC were deleted and 34 IPC was added later on) at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. On 01.07.2025, the following order was passed: “By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the hartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner seeksquashing of the order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P by SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby the bail of thepetitioner was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to theState and he was ordered to be summoned through non bailablewarrants of arrest in case FIR as mentioned below: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-31497-2025 Decided on : 21.07.2025 ……Petitioner(s) Versus ……Respondent(s) JASJIT SINGH BEDI , Advocate, for the petitioner (s). Khurmi, DAG, Haryana. in the present petition under Section 528 BNSS, 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby the bail of petitioner was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and he was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants of arrest in case FIR No.88 dated 27.05.2020 under Sections 148, 149, 323, 363, 366, nd 366 IPC were deleted and 34 IPC was added later on) at Police Station Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar. , the following order was passed: By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of the Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner seeksquashing of the order dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby the bail of thepetitioner was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited tate and he was ordered to be summoned through non bailablewarrants of arrest in case FIR as mentioned below: - ……Petitioner(s) ……Respondent(s) 528 BNSS, passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State bailable warrants of arrest 148, 149, 323, 363, 366, nd 366 IPC were deleted and 34 IPC was added By way of present petition filed under Section 528 of theB- Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner 5) passed by SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, whereby the bail of thepetitioner was cancelled and his bail/surety bonds were forfeited tate and he was ordered to be summoned through non- SAILESH RANJAN 2025.07.22 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (312) CRM-M-31497-2025 -2- FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station 88 27.05.2020 148, 149, 323, 363, 366,452 IPC(149, 149, 363 and 366IPC were deleted and 34IPC was added later on) Bilaspur, Dis- trictYamuna Nagar 2. Heard. 3. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for thepetitioner that the petitioner after being granted the concession of bailhad been regularly appearing in the Court, however, on account ofdemise of his uncle, he could not put in appearance on 12.03.2025,leading to cancellation of his bail and issuance of non bailable warrantsof ar- rest, vide order dated 12.03.2025 passed by Sub DivisionalJudicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, in case No. CHI-219-2020(CNR No. HRY- NA10005162020), State vs. Vikas etc. He contends thatthe absence of the petitioner was not intentional and if granted theconcession of bail, the petitioner will regularly appear in the Court oneach and every date of hearing without fail and face the trial. 4. Notice of motion, returnable for 21.07.2025. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Amrik Narwal, DAG,Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice and submits that the petitioner had been moving the applications for exemption without anyreason and this was the 5th successive application, so moved, wi- thoutany justifiable reason by the petitioner, leading the learned Tri- al Courtto cancel his bail and issue non bailable warrants of arrest. He contendsthat the next date fixed before the learned Trial Court is 06.09.2025 forthe service of the petitioner. 6. After considering the rival contentions and perusing therecord thereof without commenting on the merits of the case, thepetitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court/Judge ondu- ty/Duty Magistrate within a period of 07 days from today and in tha- tevent, learned Trial Court/Judge on duty/Duty Magistrate will ad- mitthe petitioner on interim bail subject to its satisfaction on hisfur- nishing requisite bail/surety bonds, however, subject to deposit of acost of Rs. 10,000/- in the District Legal Services Authori- ty,Yamunanagar, before furnishing bail/surety bonds. SAILESH RANJAN 2025.07.22 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (312) CRM-M-31497-2025 -3- 7. The petitioner shall also furnish a specific undertakingbefore the learned Trial Court/Judge on duty that, in future, he wouldbe regularly appearing before the concerned Court on each and every- date and in case of some exigency, he will seek prior permission of theconcerned Court qua his exemption to appear on the date fixed. 8. The Trial Court is directed to communicate the order onthe appearance of the petitioner in this Court immediately, throughap- propriate channel well before the date of hearing.” 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in deference to the aforementioned order, petitioner has surrendered on 04.07.2025 and has since been released on interim bail. He further states that the trial is at its fag end. 4. In view of the above, no further orders are called for. 5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. 21.07.2025 (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) Sailesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SAILESH RANJAN 2025.07.22 13:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document