Dismissed¶34

Ikattar Singh @ Nanak @ Iktar Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Apr 2026CRM-M/7016/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail cancellation; non-bailable warrants; non-appearance before trial court; wilful absence; absconding; non-compliance with High Court interim order dated 06.02.2026; 10-day window to surrender; costs Rs.25,000/-; FIR No. 99 dated 23.05.2022; Section 22 NDPS Act 1985; Police Station Kotbhai; Sri Muktsar Sahib; Additional Sessions Judge; Ikattar Singh @ Nanak @ Iktar Singh; State of Punjab; CRM-M-7016-2026; High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh; Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj; decision dated 17.04.2026; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Despite being granted a period of 10 days by this Court's order dated 06.02.2026 to appear before the trial Court, the petitioner chose neither to appear before the trial Court nor to deposit the costs as ordered. ¶31

Ikattar Singh @ Nanak @ Iktar Singh Vs State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who challenges the orders dated 10.09.2025 and 12.01.2026 cancelling his bail and summoning him through non-bailable warrants, deserves the concession sought, in view of his failure to appear before the Trial Court or deposit the costs imposed by this Court's interim order dated 06.02.2026.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

¶31

Key takeaways

The petitioner's absence from the trial Court proceedings is willful; he only wishes to abscond so as to cause an inordinate delay in the determination of the proceedings.ratio¶31
Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner and his repeated non-compliance, he does not deserve the concession; accordingly the petition was dismissed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Punjab and Haryana (Chandigarh) [Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., 17.04.2026] in CRM-M-7016-2026: Ikattar Singh @ Nanak @ Iktar Singh petitioned against the orders dated 10.09.2025 and 12.01.2026 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib (arising out of FIR No. 99 dated 23.05.2022, Section 22 NDPS Act, 1985, PS Kotbhai) whereby his bail was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued. By interim order dated 06.02.2026 this Court had offered that the petitioner be admitted to interim bail if he appeared before the Trial Court within 10 days upon deposit of Rs.25,000/- as costs, staying the impugned order meanwhile. The petitioner neither appeared nor deposited the costs; the State's reply showed he also failed to appear on 12-01-2026 and 18-03-2026, prompting fresh non-bailable warrants for 02-07-2026. Holding the petitioner's absence willful — aimed at absconding and causing inordinate delay — and that, given his conduct and repeated non-compliance, he does not deserve the concession, the Court dismissed the petition.

¶1

CRM-M-7016-2026 -1-

¶2

231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CRM-M-7016-2026

¶4

Date of Decision: 17.04.2026

¶5

Ikattar Singh @ Nanak @ Iktar Singh

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ

¶11

Present: None for the petitioner.

¶12

Dr. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Challenge in the present petition is to the orders dated 10.09.2025 and 12.01.2026 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib in case titled as “ State of Punjab Versus Ikattar Singh @ Nanak ”, arising out of FIR No. 99 dated 23.05.2022 registered under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Kotbhai, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, whereby bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled and he was summoned through non-bailable warrants.

¶15

On 06.02.2026, following order was passed by this Court:-

¶16

“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was granted interim bail on 23.06.2022. He was regularly appearing before the Trial Court, however, on 10.09.2025, he could not appear before the Trial Court due to reasons beyond his control. Resultantly, bail of the petitioner was ordered to be cancelled, surety bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the Trial Court within a period of 10

¶17

SANJAY 2026.04.22 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-7016-2026 -2-

¶19

days and submit himself to the proceedings as per law.

¶20

Notice of motion.

¶21

Ms. Savi Nagpal, AAG, Punjab enters appearance and accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and prays for some time to complete instructions and file reply, if so advised.

¶22

Adjourned to 17.04.2026.

¶23

Reply, if any, be filed on or before the adjourned date with copy in advance to the learned counsel opposite.

¶24

In the meanwhile, in the event of petitioner appearing before the Trial Court within a period of 10 days from today, subject to deposit of costs of Rs.25,000/- with the “Nishkam Sewa High Court Lawyers Society, A/C No.43373609961, IFSC Code: SBIN0050306, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh, he shall be admitted to interim bail by the Trial Court on his furnishing of bail/surety bonds to its satisfaction.

¶25

The impugned order dated 10.09.2025 shall remain stayed for a period of 10 days from today to enable the petitioner to appear before the Trial Court.”

¶26

Today, no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Reply by way of affidavit of Sh. Arun Mundan, PPS, DSP, Sub Division Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib filed on behalf of the respondent is taken on record. Registry to tag the same at an appropriate place. Para No. 9 thereof reads thus:-

¶27

“9. That the coercive steps even could not acclaim the presence of petitioner-accused and he did not appear before the Ld. Trial Court on next dates of 12-01-2026 and 18-032026. Thus fresh non bailable warrants have been ordered to be issued for 02-07-2026. The petitioner has not surrendered

¶28

SANJAY 2026.04.22 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

CRM-M-7016-2026 -3-

¶30

before the Ld. Trial court within a stipulated period of 10 days and failed to comply with the order dated 06-02-2026 passed by this Hon'ble Court. From the perusal of the overall proceedings taken place in this case so far, the deliberate nonappearance of petitioner is evident. As such the petitioner deserves no concession and present petition is liable to be dismissed.”

¶31

It is evident that notwithstanding the order passed by this Court granting him a period of 10 days’ to appear before the trial Court, the petitioner has chosen neither to appear before the trial Court, nor to deposit the costs, as ordered and, thus, it is seems that the absence of the petitioner is willful and he only wishes to abscond from the proceedings of the trial Court so as to cause an inordinate delay in determination thereof.

¶32

Consequently, keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner

¶33

and his repeated non-compliance, he does not deserve the concession.

¶34

Thus, the present petition is dismissed.

¶35

(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 17.04.2026 JUDGE SN Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶36

SANJAY 2026.04.22 10:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ikattar Singh @ Nanak @ Iktar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikattar Singh @ Nanak @ Iktar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhinder Pal Singh Alias Chhinda Singh Vs State of Haryana

Sagorika Mandal Vs State of Haryana

Pritpal Singh Dhillon Vs Hdfc Bank Limited

Jagga Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ashok Vs State of Haryana

Angrej Singh Vs State of Punjab