Satrohan Singh Alias Rohan Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 21.07.2025 Satrohan Singh @ Rohan Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ***** Present :- Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral) 1.

Present petition has been filed praying for quashing of impugned order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby petitioner's bail order was cancelled and his bail bonds/surety bonds were ordered to be forfeited to the State and he was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrants of arrest in case bearing FIR No.35, dated 14.02.2020, under Sections 379-B/34 of IPC, 1860 (Section 411 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Focal Point, District Commissionerate, Ludhiana.

2.

Precise submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was prosecuted in a case bearing FIR No.35, dated 14.02.2020, under Sections 379-B/34 of IPC, 1860 (Section 411 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Focal Point, District

-2Commissionerate, Ludhiana. He has submitted that after registration of the FIR, the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 12.03.2020. He has submitted that thereafter the petitioner was regularly appearing before the learned trial Court, except on one date, i.e. 31.01.2025. He has submitted that thereafter the matter has been compromised between the parties. He has submitted that the counsel representing the petitioner before the learned trial Court has told that since the matter has been compromised between the parties, his presence before the learned trial Court is not required. He has further submitted that due to non-appearance of the petitioner before the learned trial Court on the date fixed, i.e. 31.01.

2025, his bail order was cancelled and bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State. He has submitted that non-bailable warrants of arrest were also issued against the petitioner. He has submitted that the matter has already been compromised between the parties and absence of the petitioner was bona fide and not intentional. He has further submitted that the petitioner is ready to appear before the learned trial Court and abide by the terms and conditions imposed upon him.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. J. S. Arora, DAG, Punjab appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. He, on the other hand, has contended that bail order of the petitioner was rightly cancelled by the learned trial Court and non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against him, as he failed to appear in the Court despite orders. 5.

At this stage, Mr. Vikrant Pujara, Advocate has appeared and

-3filed his power of attorney on behalf of the complainant today in the Court and the same is taken on record. He has affirmed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter has been compromised between the parties.

6.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7.

It is apparent that the petitioner was prosecuted in case bearing FIR No.35, dated 14.02.2020, under Sections 379-B/34 of IPC, 1860 (Section 411 IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Focal Point, District Commissionerate, Ludhiana, in which bail order was cancelled and bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State. Non-bailable warrants of arrest were also issued against the petitioner due to his non appearance before the learned trial Court. The reason given by the petitioner for his absence is that the counsel representing him before the learned trial Court has told him that as the matter has been compromised between the parties, his presence before the learned trial Court on the date fixed, i.e. 31.01.2025 is not required.

However, due to his non appearance, bail order of the petitioner was cancelled, bail/surety bonds were forfeited to the State and non-bailable warrants of arrest were also issued against the petitioner. The matter has already been compromised between the parties. As the petitioner is keen to join the proceedings, so keeping in view the abovesaid facts, the present petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 is hereby set aside.

-4bail subject to its satisfaction and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The petitioner will have protection from arrest for a period of 10 days from today.

8.

Needless to say that in case the petitioner fails to comply with the abovesaid direction, he will have no benefit of abovesaid protection granted by this Court and order under challenge dated 31.01.2025 would come in force and the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

(RAJESH BHARDWAJ) 21.07.2025 JUDGE rittu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No