BALWINDER SINGH @ KAKKU @ BALVINDER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA
CRM-M/39162/2026 · 2026-07-20
Virinder Aggarwal
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 31396 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 31396 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRM-M-39162-2026 1 165 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-39162-2026 Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 BALWINDER SINGH @ KAKKU @ BALVINDER SINGH ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present : Mr. Gurmej Singh Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** 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 order dated 06.07.2026, passed by learned Sessions Judge/Special Court, Sirsa, vide which the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and arrest warrants of the petitioner has been issued for 07.10.2026 in case FIR No.648 dated 06.12.2022 under Section 15 of NDPS Act at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FSL report is still awaited and the matter has been adjourned from time to time for the said purpose. It is submitted that the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the learned Court on each and every date of SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.20 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-39162-2026 2 hearing; however, he could not appear on the date in question due to the aforesaid circumstances.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, learned Addl. A.G. Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.
5. Perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, shows that the present prosecution arises out of a case registered under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The report of the FSL had not been received and the learned Court was awaiting the receipt of the said report. On the date fixed, the petitioner could not appear before the Court and was marked absent. Though the absence of the petitioner cannot be said to be justified, however, since no effective proceedings were required to be conducted on that date, the cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner and forfeiture of bail bonds and surety bonds was not warranted.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Judge, Special Court, within a period of 10 days from today.
7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 20.07.2026 S. Pathania Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.20 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document