126 CRM-M-49226-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49226-2025 Date of decision: 04.09.2025 KOSHAL ….Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..… RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 seeking setting aside of impugned order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) and 08.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Panipat in case bearing FIR No.524 dated 06.09.2022 registered under Sections 22C, 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 201, 420, 467, 471 and 120-B IPC at P.S. Israna, District Panipat, whereby the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and bail bonds/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and issuance of non bailable warrants. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was on bail and was regularly appearing before learned trial Court. However, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court as father of the petitioner was suffering from fever and on this ground the petitioner moved an exemption application but the same was dismissed on 19.05.2025. Subsequently vide order dated 19.05.2025, learned trial Court cancelled the Puneet Sharma 2025.09.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 126 CRM-M-49226-2025 -2- bail of the petitioner and vide order dated 08.07.2025 his non-bailable warrants were issued. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that non- appearance of the petitioner was not deliberate or intentional and thus, aggrieved by the said order, he has approached this Court by way of instant petition. It is contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of unintentional non-appearance of the petitioner. 4. It is also submitted that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial Court on each and every date. 5. Notice of motion. 6. Mr. Neeraj Sheoran, Sr. DAG Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice for the respondent-State and submits that the impugned order has been passed on the sole ground of the absence of the petitioner, however, it is not disputed by him that petitioner was already on bail and had been appearing before the trial Court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance and with the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 8. The reasons assigned by the petitioner for non-appearance seem to be genuine and it cannot be construed as a deliberate and willful absence. The explanation offered for non-appearance before the Court is justified and, therefore, the same is accepted. 9. The sole purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants is to secure presence of the accused before the trial Court. The petitioner in the present case has himself come forward and has undertaken to appear before the trial Court on each and every date. Puneet Sharma 2025.09.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment 126 CRM-M-49226-2025 -3- 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure P-4) and 08.07.2025, whereby the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and bail bonds/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and issuance of non bailable warrants, are hereby set aside. 11. Petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a period of four weeks and on his doing so, he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 12. It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to appear before the trial Court within a stipulated period, the interim protection granted by this Court shall be deemed to be vacated. (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 04.09.2025 JUDGE puneet i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No Puneet Sharma 2025.09.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment