CRM-M-19274- IN THE H (143) SONU ALIAS GU STATE OF HAR CORAM: HON Present: Mr. V Ms. H MANISHA BATR 1. The i order dated 21.07 Judge, Fatehabad under Sections 111 short “BNS”) and District Fatehabad the State. Now wa 30.05.2026. 2. It is a could not appear b the impression tha intentional. He is -2026 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH AS GURDEEP ALIAS GURDEEP S Versus HARYANA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the p Ms. Himani Arora, DAG, Haryana **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been filed by 21.07.2025 passed by the Court of abad in case arising out of FIR No.33 ns 111(3), 310(4) and 310(5) of Bhara and Section 25 of Arms Act at P ehabad, whereby his bail was cancelle ow warrants of arrest have been order It is argued by learned counsel for th pear before the Learned Trial Court on ion that he had been acquitted in thi He is ready to join the proceedings b JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-19274-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.04.2026 EEP SINGH ... Petitioner ...Respondent ANISHA BATRA or the petitioner iled by the petitioner challenging the urt of Learned Additional Sessions No.331 dated 16.07.2024 registered Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for t at Police Station City Fatehabad, ancelled and bonds were forfeited to ordered to be issued against him for l for the petitioner that the petitioner ourt on 21.07.2025 as he came under in this case. His absence was not ings before the Learned Trial Court M) 2026 g the sions tered (for abad, ed to for ioner nder s not ourt AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.09 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-19274- and to abide by therefore, argued t 3. Notic 4. Lear argued by her that such the same doe 5. This the parties. 6. The in cancellation of The explanation g he had been acqui plausible at all. A order and therefor keeping in view before the Learned the petitioner to su today. On his ap personal bonds, he 7. A cop 09.04.2026 Amit Sharma -2026 (O&M) 2 e by the terms and conditions to b gued that the petition deserves to be al Notice of motion. Learned State counsel has advance er that there is no illegality or infirmity e does not deserve any interference. This Court has heard the submission The petitioner had absented himself ion of his bail and forfeiture of his per tion given by the petitioner is that he acquitted in this case. The said expl all. Apparently, there is no illegality erefore, this Court finds no reason to iew the fact that the petitioner is r earned Trial Court, the petition is disp r to surrender before the Trial Court w his appearing before the Trial Court a nds, he will be admitted to bail by the T A copy of this order be sent to the Le (MA Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:- Yes/No s to be imposed upon him. It is, o be allowed. vance notice of the petition. It is firmity in the impugned order and as nce. ission made by learned counsel for mself on 21.07.2025 which resulted personal as well as surety bonds. hat he was under the impression that id explanation does not appear to be egality or infirmity in the impugned son to set aside the same. However, er is ready to join the proceedings is disposed of by giving direction to ourt within a period of 10 days from ourt and furnishing fresh as well as y the Trial Court. the Learned Trial Court. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE oned:- Yes/No es/No It is, It is nd as l for ulted nds. that to be gned ever, ings on to from ll as AMIT SHARMA 2026.04.09 18:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.