RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of BNSS of 2023 seeking quashing of the order dtd. 28/5/2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib vide which the petitioner was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants and order dtd. 17/7/2025 (Annexure P-6) vide which proclamation was ordered to be issued against him in case pertaining to FIR No.46 dtd. 16/3/2025 under Ss. 21(b), 27, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had earlier been granted the concession of bail by the concerned Court vide order dtd. 9/4/2025 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had engaged the counsel before the Sessions Court only for securing regular bail and not for contesting the trial. Learned counsel has further submitted that the challan had not yet been presented, but on 20/5/2025 the challan was presented in the absence of the petitioner and case was adjourned to 28/5/2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Investigating Officer did not inform the next date of hearing fixed in the matter to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that due to the abovesaid reason, the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court. Learned counsel has further iterated that due to his non-appearance the trial Court has summoned him through non-bailable warrants of arrest for 17/7/2025, while cancelling his bail orders and subsequently on 17/7/2025 proclamation qua the petitioner was also ordered to be issued. Learned counsel has iterated that the non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial Court was not willful and intentional but on account of no information about the date fixed in his case. Learned counsel has contended that the procedure adopted by the learned trial Court in directly issuing the non-bailable warrants and against the petitioner at the very first instance is contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is well established position of law, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that the Courts are required to adhere to due process while ensuring the presence of the accused. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that in the instant case, the learned trial Court has failed to issue any notice to the petitioner prior to resorting to the issuance of non-bailable warrants and hence such an approach is arbitrary, untenable and contrary to the procedural safeguard enshrined under the law. Learned counsel has further iterated that the petitioner unequivocally undertakes to enter appearance before the trial Court as also join the proceedings in accordance with law, the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and also cooperate therein, in accordance with law for an expeditious culmination of the trial.

(3.) Notice of motion.