CRM-M-36562-2026 1 149 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36562-2026 Date of Decision: 09.07.2026 SUSHIL KUMAR @ KALI ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Satyawan Singh Nain, Advocate with Ms. Tanya Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 61 of 2023 titled State v. Sunil Kumar @ Kali and Others, arising out of FIR No. 541 dated 31.10.2022, registered under Sections 307, 341, 395 and 397 IPC (corresponding to Sections 109, 126, 310(2) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Pundri, District Kaithal, whereby non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner on account of his non- appearance on the date fixed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was duly granted the concession of regular bail in the present case and there has been no deliberate or intentional misuse of the said concession. It is further contended that the absence of the petitioner before the learned trial Court on 05.12.2024 was neither wilful nor deliberate, as the petitioner was already in KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36562-2026 2 judicial custody in another case, namely FIR No. 489 dated 19.11.2024, registered at Police Station City Gohana, District Sonipat, and was thus legally incapable of appearing before the Court. Learned counsel submits that the said fact was not considered by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order and the coercive proceedings were initiated without recording any finding of intentional non-appearance or misuse of the concession of bail. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has not absconded and has always remained available to face the proceedings. It is argued that the initiation of proclamation proceedings against the petitioner is wholly unwarranted and contrary to the settled principles of law, as the necessary ingredients for declaring a person proclaimed offender/person have not been satisfied. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the impugned proclamation proceedings and all consequential orders arising therefrom be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further undertakes that the petitioner will surrender before the trial Court and shall join the trial proceedings without any delay or default in future. 4. Notice of motion. 5. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Surender Singh Pannu, Addl. AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel does not oppose the undertaking furnished by the petitioner that he shall surrender before the learned trial Court; however, he submits that the petitioner could have requested the jail authorities for his production before the learned trial Court on the date fixed. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-36562-2026 3 6. In response thereto, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that he could seek his production before the learned trial Court through the jail authorities on the date fixed. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner was already in custody in another case on the date when he remained absent before the learned trial Court, the impugned order is set aside and petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of ten days from today and move an appropriate application for grant of regular bail. The learned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. 8. In case the petitioner moves an application for grant of regular bail before the learned trial Court, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, preferably on the same day, in accordance with law. 9. It is, however, made clear that in the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the aforesaid direction, the respondent-State shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy, including revival of the present petition. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 09.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.09 18:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh