CRM-M-40579-2026. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (137) CRM-M-40579-2026. Date of Decision:-02.09.2026. SANDEEP KUMAR …Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN **** Present: Mr. Armaan Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioner. **** ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition is for quashing of impugned orders dated 02.02.2026 (Annexure P-3) and 09.07.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, in NDPS/236/2024 titled “State of Punjab Vs. Sandeep Kumar”, CNR No. PBSM010031962024, arising out of FIR No. 74 dated 30.06.2024 under Sections 22(b)/61/85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby the bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the petitioner were forfeited and non-bailable warrants were issued against him and, thereafter, fresh non-bailable warrants have been issued against him for 12.02.2027. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the aforesaid FIR and was granted the concession of bail by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib, vide order dated 10.09.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner had been regularly appearing before the learned Trial Court and continued to do so till 11.07.2025. On the said date, an application seeking exemption from his personal DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.09.03 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40579-2026. 2 appearance was moved on behalf of the petitioner, whereupon the matter was adjourned to 02.02.2026. Learned counsel further submits that on 02.02.2026, the petitioner could not appear before the learned Trial Court as he was unwell and his health had deteriorated on account of an electric shock suffered by him from a high-voltage wire in the year 2025. It is further submitted that subsequently, vide order dated 09.07.2026, the learned trial Court issued fresh non-bailable warrants against the petitioner, returnable for 12.02.2027. It is further submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to surrender before the learned trial Court and join proceedings, if he is granted one opportunity to do so. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear on each and every date before the learned trial court and to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court or by learned trial Court. 3. Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the State on advance notice, submits that the absence of the petitioner has procrastinated the trial and, hence, the order is well within the legal parameters. Learned State counsel further submits that fresh non-bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner for 12.02.2027. 4. Considering the order to be passed and issuance of notice of motion will further procrastinate the trial ,the present petition is adjudicated in light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Krishna Sharma @ Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of West Bengal and another” SLP (Crl.) No. 12829 of 2023, the relevant extract of which reads as under: “However, we find that merely because the appellant did not appear personally could not have been a ground for cancellation of bail. The parameters for grant of bail and cancellation of bail are totally different. The bail already DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.09.03 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40579-2026. 3 granted may be cancelled, if it is found that the person who has been granted the benefit of bail has violated any of the conditions or misused the liberty by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.” 5. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to surrender and join the proceedings and also to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by this Court or by the learned trial Court. In case, one opportunity is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice shall be caused to any party, rather his joining the proceedings would ensure finalization of proceedings. 6. In light of the above factual matrix and considering the ratio of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra, the petitioner is directed to surrender within a period of two weeks from today and shall be released on bail by furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. 7. In light of the above, the present petition stands disposed of and the petitioner is imposed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with the concerned DLSA before the learned trial Court. (ALOK JAIN) JUDGE September 02, 2026. Deepak Patwal Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No DEEPAK PATWAL 2026.09.03 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document