Order

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 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.

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 peti