Punjab and Haryana High Court
CRM-M/38622/2026 of NAVDEEP SINGH @ DEEP Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 17 July 2026
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-38622-2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 NAVDEEP SINGH @ DEEP ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Rattu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38622-2026
Date of Decision: 17.07.2026
NAVDEEP SINGH @ DEEP
......... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present :
Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL
, J. (Oral)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present petition has been filed 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 order dated 31.01.2023 (Annexure P-3), whereby the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled and non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued on account of his non-appearance before the trial Court on 31.01.2023, in connection with FIR No. 98 dated 21.09.2020, registered under Sections 323, 308, 379-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with Sections 411 and 201 IPC having been added subsequently (corresponding to Sections 115, 110, 303(2), 3(5), 317 and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), at Police Station Cheema, District Sangrur, Punjab.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner had already been granted concession of SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document regular bail vide order dated 09.02.2021 by this Court. Thereafter, he was regularly appearing before the Trial Court, however, on 31.01.2023, he could not appear before the Trial Court due to the reason that counsel told him that he is acquitted in the present case and now the case is closed. Resultantly, the bail of the petitioner was cancelled and non bailable warrants of arrest was issued against him.
3. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to press the present petition at this stage. It is further submitted that the petitioner shall surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of three days from today and may be permitted to move an appropriate application seeking grant of regular bail before the said Court.
4. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of as not pressed. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Trial Court within a period of three days from today. In the event the petitioner surrenders within the aforesaid period and files an application seeking regular bail, the learned Trial Court shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week from the date of its filing, in accordance with law.
5. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( VIRINDER AGGARWAL) JUDGE 17.07.2026 S. Pathania Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
SAURAV PATHANIA 2026.07.17 18:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document