CRM-M-34054-2026 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-34054-2026 Date of decision: 17.06.2026 Dr. Sumeet Sofat ...Pe""oner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Dr. Sumeet Sofat, Pe""oner in person. (Through VC) **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present pe""on filed under Sec"on 528 of the Bhara"ya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the pe""oner seeks se6ng aside of the order dated 05.06.2026 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana, whereby his applica"on seeking recall/cancella"on of warrants of arrest and permission to join inves"ga"on has been dismissed, in case FIR No. 244 of 2025 registered at Police Sta"on Division N: 8, Ludhiana, U/ss 218, 221, 222, 224, 351, 3(5) & 132 BNS, 2023. 2. Pe""oner, appearing in person through VC, submits that pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Addi"onal Sessions Judge while gran"ng an"cipatory bail, the pe""oner was required to join inves"ga"on on or before 05.01.2026. It is contended that on the said date, the pe""oner had suddenly fallen ill and, therefore, could not appear before the Inves"ga"ng Officer. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon a medical cer"ficate (Annexure P-2) issued by a private hospital. It is thus argued that the non-appearance was neither inten"onal nor deliberate and the warrants of arrest deserve to be withdrawn. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34054-2026 [2] 3. I have heard the pe""oner and have gone through the paper- book. 4. The pe""on is devoid of merit. It is not disputed that vide order dated 15.12.2025, the pe""oner was granted the concession of an"cipatory bail subject to the condi"on that he would join inves"ga"on within twenty working days and cooperate with the Inves"ga"ng Agency. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has recorded a categorical finding that despite the aforesaid direc"on, the pe""oner failed to join inves"ga"on and did not comply with the condi"ons aDached to the order gran"ng an"cipatory bail. Consequently, warrants of arrest came to be issued owing to his non-appearance and non-coopera"on. 5. The principal ground now sought to be urged before this Court is that the pe""oner was unwell on 05.01.2026 and, therefore, could not join inves"ga"on. Significantly, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that no such plea was ever raised before the Court below. The pe""oner cannot be permiDed to improve his case by introducing a fresh factual explana"on for the first "me before this Court. A li"gant who has failed to place the relevant facts before the Court of first instance cannot seek interference on the basis of a plea which never formed part of the proceedings before that Court. 6. Even otherwise, the medical cer"ficate relied upon by the pe""oner does not inspire confidence. The cer"ficate has been issued by a private hospital and is unsupported by any contemporaneous treatment record, diagnos"c report, prescrip"on or other material indica"ng that the pe""oner was suffering from such a serious ailment as would render him incapable of appearing before the Inves"ga"ng Officer within 20 days of the passing of order dated 15.12.2025. Mere produc"on of a medical YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34054-2026 [3] cer"ficate, par"cularly when the same is sought to be relied upon for the first "me before this Court, cannot by itself furnish a sa"sfactory explana"on for non-compliance of a judicial order. 7. There is yet another aspect of the maDer. The pe""oner was under a specific obliga"on imposed by the order gran"ng an"cipatory bail to join and cooperate in the inves"ga"on. Once such protec"on was granted subject to condi"ons, strict adherence thereto was expected. A person who fails to comply with the condi"ons upon which discre"onary relief was granted cannot subsequently claim equitable relief as a maDer of right. The conduct of the pe""oner in not joining inves"ga"on despite the express direc"on of the Court dis-en"tles him from invoking the discre"onary jurisdic"on of this Court. 8. The explana"on sought to be furnished relates only to a par"cular date. There is nothing on record to show that the pe""oner made any prompt endeavour to join inves"ga"on immediately thereaGer. The absence of any such bona fide conduct further weakens the credibility of the explana"on now advanced. 9. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdic"onal error warran"ng interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdic"on. Rather, the learned Magistrate has rightly declined to recall the warrants aGer no"cing that the pe""oner had failed to comply with the condi"ons of the an"cipatory bail order and had not cooperated with the inves"ga"on. 10. Consequently, finding no merit in the present pe""on, the same is dismissed. 11. Needless to observe that dismissal of the present pe""on shall not preclude the pe""oner from surrendering before the competent Court YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-34054-2026 [4] and seeking such relief as may be available to him in accordance with law. 17.06.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.06.17 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document