CRM-M-41034-2026 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (145) CRM-M-41034-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.07.2026 SAMA DEVI … Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA ... Respondent -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Ms. Irma Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. AG, Haryana. -.- VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral) 1. The present petition has been instituted 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 17.04.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby the concession of regular bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled, the personal and surety bonds furnished by her were forfeited, non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against the petitioner, and notice was directed to be issued to her surety in FIR No. 173 dated 16.04.2023, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Sector-07, Panchkula (Annexure P-1). 1.1. A further prayer has been made for issuance of appropriate directions to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, to restore GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41034-2026 (O&M) -:2:- the earlier order granting regular bail along with the personal and surety bonds furnished by the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner assails the legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, cancelled the concession of regular bail earlier granted to her, forfeited the personal and surety bonds, directed issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner, and issued notice to her surety in connection with aforesaid FIR No. 173 dated 16.04.2023. It is the petitioner's case that the impugned order is legally unsustainable and warrants interference in the exercise of this Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a poor domestic worker with no criminal antecedents, was granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, vide order dated 20.11.2023, and had been regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court without ever misusing the concession of bail. It is contended that her absence on certain dates was neither intentional nor deliberate but was solely on account of her serious cardiac and chronic respiratory ailments, for which she has been undergoing continuous medical treatment. Exemption applications, supported by medical documents, were duly filed through her counsel. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court, without properly appreciating the bona fide reasons for her absence, passed the impugned order dated 17.04.2025, cancelling her bail, forfeiting her personal and surety bonds, and issuing non-bailable warrants against her. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.04.2026, fresh non-bailable warrants were again issued against the petitioner. GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41034-2026 (O&M) -:3:- 3.1. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner has throughout cooperated with the trial and has never attempted to abscond or misuse the concession of bail. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the earlier bail order along with the personal and surety bonds be restored. 4. Notice of motion. 4.1. Upon issuance of notice, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, Addl. AG, Haryana, appeared on behalf of the respondent–State, accepted notice, and vehemently opposed the petition. It is contended that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and does not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the paper book as well as the material placed on record with their able assistance. 6. The impugned order reads as under:- “Today the case was fixed for arguments on charge. However, the accused Shama Devi has not appeared and an application for exemption from personal appearance is moved on her behalf. In the application, it is stated that she is suffering from viral fever and she could not appear today due to the above reason. Heard on the application for exemption from personal appearance filed by accused Shama Devi. The record would reveal that on 23.11.2023, she filed the application for exemption from personal appearance on the ground that she was suffering from fever. On 10.07.2024 as well, the accused Shama Devi filed the application for GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41034-2026 (O&M) -:4:- exemption from personal appearance on the ground that she was suffering from viral fever and she is a heart patient. On 26.09.2024, she filed the application for exemption from personal appearance on the ground that she was suffering from the symptoms of Dengue and high fever. Again, she moved the application for exemption from personal appearance on 29.10.2024 on the ground that she was suffering from viral fever. On 28.11.2024, she filed the application for exemption from personal appearance alleging that she was suffering from symptoms of Dengue. On 19.02.2025 as well, she filed the application for exemption from personal appearance on the ground that she was suffering from viral fever. The above conduct on the part of the applicant/accused Shama Devi would reveal that she has been filing the applications for exemption from personal appearance repeatedly on the ground of fever and none of the applications is accompanied by a certificate from any doctor. The application for exemption from personal appearance filed today as well is not supported either by an affidavit of the applicant/accused Shama Devi or the medical certificate from any doctor. It appears that the present application for exemption is frivolous one filed only to delay the proceedings. Hence, the application for exemption from personal appearance moved on behalf of accused Shama Devi is hereby dismissed. Since she has failed to appear before the Court without any cogent reason, the bail granted to the applicant/accused Shama Devi is hereby cancelled. The personal bond and surety bond furnished by accused Shama Devi are cancelled. Let non-bailable warrant against accused Shama Devi be issued for 26.05.2025. Notice to the surety of accused Shama Devi be also issued for the date fixed.” 7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner had remained absent from the proceedings on repeated occasions despite her presence being indispensable for consideration of the question of framing GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-41034-2026 (O&M) -:5:- of charge and, if so framed, for recording her plea thereto. The record further reflects that the petitioner persistently sought exemption from personal appearance on the recurring ground of suffering from viral fever. However, the learned Trial Court, after noticing a consistent pattern of such conduct for more than one year, rightly declined the prayer for exemption, observing that none of the applications was supported by any medical certificate issued by a competent medical practitioner, nor was the application in question accompanied by the petitioner's affidavit or any authentic medical record. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Trial Court was justified in drawing a prima facie inference that the petitioner was deliberately avoiding her appearance and protracting the trial. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8. Consequently, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pending criminal proceedings, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The present petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 9. In view of the final adjudication of the principal matter, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, arising out of or ancillary to the present proceedings shall also stand disposed of. No separate or further orders are called for in respect thereof, the same having been rendered infructuous by virtue of the present adjudication. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2026.07.27 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document