Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23948 (PNJ)

DAULAT @ DAULATRAM v. STATE OF HARYANA

CRM-M/32935/2026 · 2026-06-08

Rohit Kapoor

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CRM-M-32935-2026 1 153 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32935-2026 Date of decision: 08.06.2026 DAULAT @ DAULATRAM ....Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR ***** Present: Mr. H.P. Singh, Advocate (through VC) for Ms. Kuljeet Kaur Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, AAG, Haryana. ***** ROHIT KAPOOR, J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under section 528 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to section 482 Cr.PC) for setting aside the order dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-3), whereby bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail bonds and surety bonds have been forfeited and warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner in case bearing CIS No.SC/345/2022 pertaining to FIR No.435 dated 08.12.2021, under sections 379-B, 392, 397, read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, read with sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at police station Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted the concession of bail on 26.08.2022 in the afore-mentioned FIR. Thereafter, he was regularly appearing before the trial Court for facing trial. It is MOHIT GOYAL 2026.06.09 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32935-2026 2 further averred that due to an inadvertent and bonafide mistake, wrong date of case was noted, and therefore the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on 24.03.2026, leading to the passing of the impugned order. It is submitted that the absence of the petitioner from the Court was totally unintentional. It is pointed out that after the issuance of non-bailable warrants, the case is now fixed for 08.07.2026. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the trial Court and abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Mr. Arun Kumar Singla, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the State and waives service. 5. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and stated that the trial Court has rightly cancelled the bail of the petitioner on account of his absence on the date fixed. 6. Heard. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the petitioner remained absent on 24.03.2026 and resultantly his bail was cancelled and bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and warrants of arrest were issued. The stated reason for absence on the date fixed, is noting down of a wrong date. As the petitioner is keen to join the proceedings, no useful purpose would be served by sending him behind the bars, rather it will be appropriate if he is allowed to join the proceedings in the main case. 8. In that view of the matter, without commenting upon the merits, the order dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) is set aside and one opportunity is MOHIT GOYAL 2026.06.09 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-32935-2026 3 afforded to the petitioner, to appear and surrender before the Court concerned, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to be deposited with the District Legal Services Authority, Sonipat, within a period of 07 days from today. 9. In case the petitioner appears surrenders before the concerned Court concerned within 10 days from today and files an appropriate application for bail along with receipt evidencing payment of the aforementioned costs, the Court concerned is directed to admit him to bail subject to its satisfaction and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The petitioner will have protection from arrest for a period of 10 days from today. 10. Needless to say that in the event the petitioner fails to comply with the aforementioned directions, no benefit of the protection granted by this Court shall be granted to him and the order dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure P-3) would remain in force. 11. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (ROHIT KAPOOR) 08.06.2026 JUDGE mohit goyal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No MOHIT GOYAL 2026.06.09 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document