CRM-M-35585-2026 1 300 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-35585-2026 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 BABITA ...Petitioner Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Sunil Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana. VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of the order dated 21.05.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat, in case bearing CIS No. SC/290/2024, titled State of Haryana vs. Babita and others, arising out of FIR No. 114 dated 01.04.2019, registered at Police Station Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, whereby the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled and her bail bonds/surety bonds have been forfeited to the State. A further prayer has been made for restoration of the petitioner to bail on the same bail bonds before the learned trial Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never intended to evade the process of law or to abscond from the proceedings. It is contended that her non-appearance before the learned Trial Court on 21.05.2026 was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred solely on account of a bona fide misunderstanding of the date of hearing. Being an illiterate lady from a rural background, the petitioner is unable to read or write and is entirely dependent upon her family members and counsel KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-35585-2026 2 for information regarding the dates fixed by the Court. Owing to an inadvertent mistake, she mistakenly believed that the next date of hearing was 21.06.2026 instead of 21.05.2026, which resulted in her absence. 2.1 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has throughout cooperated with the investigation as well as the trial proceedings and has never attempted to delay or obstruct the administration of justice. It is argued that there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioner has tampered with the prosecution evidence, influenced or intimidated any witness, or misused the concession of bail in any other manner. Her absence on the date in question was an isolated and unintentional lapse, which ought not to have been construed as an attempt to evade the process of law. 2.2 It is further contended that the object of securing the presence of an accused can be achieved by imposing appropriate conditions, and cancellation of bail, which has the effect of curtailing personal liberty, ought to be resorted to only where the conduct of the accused demonstrates a deliberate disregard for the process of the Court. In the present case, no such circumstance exists. Rather, the petitioner has expressed her willingness to appear before the learned Trial Court on every date of hearing and undertakes to strictly abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 2.3 Learned counsel also points out that even on an earlier occasion, when the petitioner had failed to appear due to a wrong date having been communicated to her by the jail authorities, she complied with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, surrendered before the concerned Court within the stipulated period, deposited the costs as directed, and was released on bail. KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-35585-2026 3 This conduct, it is submitted, clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has respect for the process of law and has never harboured any intention to abscond or avoid the proceedings. 3. Status report by way of affidavit of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, on behalf of respondent/State has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record, copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel opposite. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the present petition and submits that the petitioner has repeatedly failed to appear before the learned Trial Court despite having been granted the concession of bail. It is contended that this is the second occasion on which her bail has been cancelled on account of her non-appearance. The explanation of a bona fide mistake regarding the date of hearing is not sufficient in view of her previous conduct. It is further submitted that the petitioner was duty-bound to remain present before the Trial Court, and her absence on the date fixed for recording of prosecution evidence has delayed the trial. 5. On a consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner was initially granted the concession of bail and, pursuant to the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by this Court, again appeared before the learned Trial Court, deposited the costs as directed, and was released on regular bail. It is not disputed that the impugned order dated 21.05.2026 came to be passed on account of the petitioner's non-appearance on the said date. The explanation put forth by the petitioner is that, being an illiterate lady from a rural background, she bona fide mistook the next date of hearing as KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M-35585-2026 4 21.06.2026 instead of 21.05.2026. Though such an explanation cannot be accepted as a complete justification for her absence, particularly in view of the earlier default on her part, yet there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner deliberately absented herself with an intention to evade the process of law or to misuse the concession of bail. Considering that the petitioner has approached this Court without undue delay, and keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within 10 days and upon such surrender, the learned Trial Court shall release the petitioner on bail to its satisfaction, subject to the petitioner furnishing fresh bail bonds and surety bonds, as may be required. The proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. (corresponding provision Section 491 BNSS, 2023) for the absence of the petitioner on 21.05.2026 shall be considered and dealt with by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made by this Court. 7. The instant petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 23.07.2026 kv Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No KUMUD VERMA 2026.07.24 15:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh