Jamshed vs State Of Haryana

Jamshed ….Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana …Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. KALSON
Present : Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G, Haryana.

NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (Oral)
1) The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘BNSS’), seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated
16.03.2026 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad, in proceedings arising out of FIR
No.350 dated 29.05.2024, registered under Sections 365, 379-A, 506
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (corresponding to Sections
140(3), 304, 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS), with Section 384 IPC
(corresponding to Section 308(2) of BNS) added subsequently, at
Police Station Mujesar, District Faridabad, insofar as the said order
cancels the petitioner's bail, forfeits his bail and surety bonds and
directs issuance of non-bailable warrants against him, as well as
consequential orders dated 06.07.2026 (Annexure P-7) and
17.10.2026 (Annexure P-8).
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner had been granted regular bail by the learned Additional
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

2) and had regularly appeared before the learned Trial Court,
including during the proceedings relating to framing of charge on
03.04.2025 (Annexure P-3) and thereafter on 29.08.2025 (Annexure
P-4). It is submitted that his absence on 16.03.2026 was neither
deliberate nor intentional, as he had met with an accident and was
admitted to the hospital, on account of which he remained under
treatment, as reflected in the medical record (Annexure P-6). Learned
counsel further submits that an application seeking exemption from
personal appearance was moved on behalf of the petitioner on the
same day at 3:25 PM, but the same was held to be infructuous as non-
bailable warrants had already been issued. It is contended that the
impugned order cancelling bail, forfeiting the bail and surety bonds
and directing issuance of non-bailable warrants is harsh and
disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case. The
petitioner undertakes to appear before the learned Trial Court and to
participate in the proceedings in accordance with law.
3) Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the petition and
submits that the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Trial
Court on the date fixed and that the Court was justified in taking steps
to secure his presence. It is contended that the petitioner must remain
bound by the conditions imposed while granting bail.
4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the material available on record.
5) The controversy involved in the present petition lies
within a narrow compass, namely, whether the concession of bail
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

surety bonds forfeited, with issuance of non-bailable warrants, on
account of his absence on 16.03.2026, in the circumstances reflected
in the petition and the impugned order.
6) It is well settled that issuance of non-bailable warrants,
being a coercive process involving serious consequences for personal
liberty, ought not to be resorted to mechanically or as a matter of
routine. In Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal
and others, (2007) 12 SCC 1, Hon'ble the Supreme Court emphasised
that such warrants should be issued only when the circumstances
warrant adoption of a stringent measure and that, ordinarily, summons
or bailable warrants should be preferred where they are sufficient to
secure the presence of the accused. The discretion to issue non-
bailable warrants, therefore, must be exercised judiciously, keeping in
view the necessity of securing attendance as well as the constitutional
guarantee of personal liberty.
7) The same principle was reiterated in Sharif Ahmed v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 INSC 363, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme
Court deprecated the routine issuance of non-bailable warrants and
underscored that recourse to such coercive process must be justified
by the facts and circumstances of the case. The availability of less
coercive measures, the conduct of the accused and the necessity for
securing their presence are relevant considerations while exercising
such discretion.
8) Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is significant
that the petitioner had been granted regular bail by the learned
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

(Annexure P-2) and, as per the averments in the petition, had been
appearing before the learned Trial Court during the proceedings. His
absence on 16.03.2026 is stated to have occurred because he had met
with an accident and was admitted to the hospital. It is further asserted
that an application seeking exemption from personal appearance was
moved on his behalf on the same day, which was held to be
infructuous as non-bailable warrants had already been issued. These
circumstances are relevant while examining whether the coercive
steps taken against him are required to be continued, particularly in
view of the explanation now furnished by the petitioner.
9) The cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail and surety
bonds are serious consequences and ought not to follow mechanically
from an instance of absence, particularly when the petitioner asserts
that the default was unintentional and that he had suffered injuries
requiring hospitalisation. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked
that the learned Trial Court was justified in taking steps to secure the
presence of the petitioner when he failed to appear on the date fixed.
The application seeking exemption from personal appearance was
moved only after non-bailable warrants had already been issued.
However, having regard to the explanation now furnished and the
settled principles governing the exercise of coercive powers, this
Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be
adequately served by affording the petitioner one opportunity to join
the proceedings, subject to appropriate safeguards and conditions.
10) The object of requiring the presence of an accused is to
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

default with a disproportionate consequence. At the same time, the
petitioner is expected to remain vigilant and comply with the
directions of the learned Trial Court. In the present case, however, the
conduct of the petitioner cannot be entirely overlooked. He has
remained absent from the proceedings since 16.03.2026. Even if the
explanation regarding his accident, hospitalisation and subsequent
medical treatment is taken into consideration, the petitioner was under
an obligation to inform the learned Trial Court of the circumstances
preventing his appearance, either personally, wherever feasible, or
through his counsel, and to seek appropriate exemption in accordance
with law. Though an application seeking exemption was moved on his
behalf on the same day, it was filed after the issuance of non-bailable
warrants. His continued absence thereafter, despite the issuance of
fresh non-bailable warrants, reflects a lack of due diligence in
complying with the conditions of bail.
11) Nevertheless, keeping in view the medical circumstances
pleaded by the petitioner and the fact that the object of the
proceedings is to secure his presence for the purpose of trial, this
Court considers it appropriate to extend one opportunity to him to
appear before the learned Trial Court. However, the indulgence so
granted cannot be unconditional. The continued absence of the
petitioner and his failure to take appropriate steps before the learned
Trial Court warrant the imposition of substantial costs, so as to
balance the concession being extended to him with his obligation to
comply with the process of law.
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

impugned order dated 16.03.2026 (Annexure P-5), passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridabad,
insofar as it cancels the bail of the petitioner, forfeits his bail and
surety bonds and directs issuance of non-bailable warrants against
him, along with the consequential orders dated 06.07.2026 (Annexure
P-7) and 17.10.2026 (Annexure P-8), insofar as they pertain to the
petitioner, are hereby set aside, with a view to affording the petitioner
one final opportunity to participate in the trial, and without treating his
continued absence as justified or condoned, subject to deposit of costs
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), to be deposited with
the concerned District Legal Services Authority by the petitioner
within seven days from the receipt of copy of this order.
13) The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned
Trial Court within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of
copy of this order and file an appropriate application along with the
receipt of costs of Rs.30,000/-. Upon such application being filed, and
subject to compliance with the aforesaid condition regarding deposit
of costs, the learned Trial Court shall grant bail to the petitioner till the
disposal of the case, subject to his furnishing fresh bail/surety bonds.
The petitioner will have protection from arrest for a period of ten days
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Trial Court shall
be at liberty to impose any condition it deems fit on the petitioner
while admitting him to bail, including such conditions as may be
necessary to ensure his regular appearance and participation in the
proceedings. It is made clear that in the event of failure to comply
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

entitled to claim the benefit of this order, and the learned Trial Court
shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
14) All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
05.11.2026 ( NEERJA K. KALSON )
Rajeev (rvs)
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
RAJEEV PUROHIT
2026.11.05 19:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document