Shounak Marhia v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 03.07.2026 Shounak Marhia ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Partap Singh.

Present:

Mr. Karamjit Singh Manngat, Advocate for the petitioner(s) [Through Hybrid Mode].

Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent.

Surya Partap Singh, J.

1.

This petition for anticipatory bail is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of 'the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023'. It has been filed with regard to a case arising out of FIR No. 21 dated 31.01.2025, for the commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 420 & 120-B of 'the Indian Penal Code, 1860', Police Station City Moga, District Moga, Punjab.

2.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on 29.04.2026 he could not appear before the learned trial Court as he was already in custody in some other cases and was confined in Central Jail, Faridkot. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, in the above-mentioned circumstances, the

impugned order was passed, which deserves to be quashed. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. Eklavya Darshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with.

5.

The record has been perused carefully.

6.

Admittedly, the petitioner was not present before the learned trial Court in compliance with the conditions imposed in the bail order(s) and therefore, it is hereby held that the learned trial Court was left with no option but to cancel the bail order(s), forfeit the bail bonds and issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Since apparently, there is no illegality in the above-mentioned order, it is hereby held that there is no scope for interference in the impugned order.

7.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty for the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court and move an application(s) for bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the bail application(s), to be moved by the petitioner, in a time-bound manner. 8.

In view of above, the present petition is hereby disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of one month from today. If the petitioner surrenders before the learned trial Court and moves an application(s) for bail, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the bail application(s) on the same day. It is, however, clarified that the learned trial Court in the exercise of its discretion

shall be at liberty to impose penalty under Section 491 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 446 of CrPC), as per law.

(Surya Partap Singh) Judge July 03, 2026 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No