[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmp / 6202U / 2026Satyanarayan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20668) on 1 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:20668]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3457/2026
Satyanarayan S/o Govardhanlal Ji Kumawat, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Rupahelikhurd P.S Rayla Dist Bhilwara Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
01/05/2026
1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of
the BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, East Bhilwara in Criminal Case No.
9699/2017 (State vs. Satyanarayan), whereby the learned
Magistrate issued a production warrant against the petitioner and
further initiated proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, 'CrPC'), in connection with
FIR No.133/2017 registered at Police Station Banera, District
Bhilwara, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and
384 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 15.09.2017, a
written report was submitted by the complainant Parmeshwar
alleging that at about 6:00 PM, while he had gone for a walk, the
present petitioner along with co-accused persons allegedly
assaulted him, causing multiple injuries on his body and also
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:47:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20668] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3457/2026]
snatched his mobile phone before fleeing from the spot, pursuant
to which FIR No. 133/2017 was registered under Sections 323,
341 and 384 IPC. During investigation, statements of prosecution
witnesses were recorded and a charge-sheet came to be filed
against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions. Thereafter,
on 16.12.2021, in the absence of the petitioner (though his
counsel was present), the learned trial court forfeited his bail
bond, proceedings were initiated under Section 446, Cr.P.C.
2.1 When the arrest warrant was returned unexecuted, on
08.10.2025, the petitioner was declared a fugitive and
proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C., were initiated and
in pursuance thereto, a production warrant was issued.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that
the petitioner has never intended to delay or obstruct the course
of trial proceedings; it is only on 16.12.2021 that, for the first
time, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial court
due to lack of knowledge of the date of hearing, as the same was
not communicated to him by his counsel. It is further submitted
that the said absence was neither willful nor deliberate. The
petitioner is now ready and willing to appear before the learned
trial court and to furnish fresh bail bonds and therefore, in the
interest of justice, one final opportunity may kindly be granted to
him.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner had violated the conditions of bail bond and therefore,
the proceedings were rightly initiated against him. Thus, the
present petition holds no merit and is liable to be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:47:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20668] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3457/2026]
5. Heard and perused the material available on record.
6. This Court has also considered order dated 22.10.2024
passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Tarun Upadhyay
Vs. State of Rajasthan bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.7296/2024, wherein it was observed as under:-
"4. Reference may be had to a judgment in case title
Mohammad Haras Vs. State of Punjab, (CRM-M
No.31385/2023, decided on 07.07.2023) relevant
whereof, for ready reference, is reproduced as below:-
"5. Heard.
6. No doubt, learned trial Court has got discretion
to cancel the bail, however, it is well settled that
before passing such an order, Court is required to
issue notice to the accused so as to afford him an
opportunity to explain as to why the bail should not
be cancelled. Such course has not been adopted by
learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur in the instant
case. On this ground alone, impugned order to the
extent of cancellation of bail deserves to be set aside.
7. Moreover, cancellation of bail is a serious
matter and can have significant impact on the life of
a person. Matters of personal liberty ought not to be
taken so lightly and in such mechanical manner as in
the case herein.
8. In the premise, impugned order is set aside.
Earlier bail order stands revived on bail bond and
surety bond already furnished by petitioner before
learned trial Court. Petitioner is directed to join
proceedings before learned trial Court within three
weeks from today and shall continue to appear before
learned trial Court without default.
9. Petition is accordingly allowed."
5. As regards the directions issued by the learned trial
court to proceed against the sureties under Section 446
Cr.P.C., the same is also a serious procedural fallacy
committed by the learned trial Magistrate and cannot be
sustained. In this context, guidelines enunciated in
judgment titled In a case titled Varinder Singh v.
State of Punjab (Punjab and Haryana High Court:-
2023:PHHC:104379) are relevant.
6. In light of the aforesaid, the impugned order directing
the forfeiture of the bail-bonds of the petitioner accused
and initiating proceedings against his surety under
Section 446 Cr.P.C.(corresponding Section 491 of
BNSS), ibid, has to be necessarily set aside. It is so
ordered.
7. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.06.2024
is set aside. The original bail bonds of the petitioner
accused as well as bonds of his sureties are restored and
trial to proceed further, in accordance with law."
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:47:12 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20668] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3457/2026]
7. In view of the above, the present misc. petition is allowed
in terms of the order passed in Tarun Upadhyay (supra). The
order dated 16.12.2021, whereby the bail bond was forfeited and
proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.(Section 491 of BNSS, 2023)
were initiated, as well as the impugned order dated 08.10.2025,
whereby the petitioner was declared 'absconding' and proceedings
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.(Sections 84 and 85 of BNSS,
2023) were initiated, are hereby set aside. The original bail bond
of the petitioner-accused, as well as the bonds of his sureties, are
restored and the trial Court shall proceed further in accordance
with law.
8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
Ashutosh-34
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:47:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
