CRM-M-39617 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 105 SUKHCHAIN SINGH ALIAS CHAINI BABA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Satnam Singh Gill Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has 11.07.2025, passed by petitioner’s bail has been cancelled, and bail bonds and surety bonds been forfeited him for 14.08.2025 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is an accused in another case titled before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam the case along with his counsel, which is apparent from the 11.07.2025, Annexure P the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, counsel to bring could not be done. counsel. The petitioner has otherwise been regularly appear Court after grant of regular bail by 39617-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Decided On: SUKHCHAIN SINGH ALIAS CHAINI BABA Versus PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed for setting aside order dated passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, petitioner’s bail has been cancelled, and bail bonds and surety bonds been forfeited to the State. Non-bailable warrants have been 14.08.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is accused in another case titled State v. Jagtar Singh before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam the case along with his counsel, which is apparent from the , Annexure P-3. This is the only reason; the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, on that to bring this fact to the notice of the Court could not be done. He should not be made to suffer for the fault of his The petitioner has otherwise been regularly appear after grant of regular bail by this Court vide order dated IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-39617-2025 Decided On: 28.07.2025 SUKHCHAIN SINGH ALIAS CHAINI BABA ....PETITIONER(s) ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Satjot Singh Chahal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. for setting aside order dated Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby the petitioner’s bail has been cancelled, and bail bonds and surety bonds have ailable warrants have been issued against Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is . Jagtar Singh, which is pending trial before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam. On 11.07.2025 he appeared in the case along with his counsel, which is apparent from the short order dated reason; he could not appear before that date. He duly instructed his the Court at Mansa, however, it He should not be made to suffer for the fault of his The petitioner has otherwise been regularly appearing before the trial vide order dated 14.11.2024. for setting aside order dated whereby the have issued against Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is which is pending trial he appeared in order dated before his it He should not be made to suffer for the fault of his before the trial Aman Dua 2025.07.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CRM-M-39617 3. Learned State counsel not appear before the Court nor his involvement in any other case was brought to the Court’s notice order dated 11.07.2025 4. Considering the facts aforementioned, especially that the petitioner was present along with his counsel in another case, Singh, before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Su non-appearance cannot be termed intentional. Therefore, the order dated on the date fixed 5. Ordered accordingly. 6. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court at Mansa in future, whenever in accordance with law. 28.07.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? 39617-2025 -2- Learned State counsel, however, contends that the petitioner did not appear before the Court nor his involvement in any other case was brought to the Court’s notice. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the 11.07.2025, cancelling his bail. Considering the facts aforementioned, especially that the petitioner was present along with his counsel in another case, , before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Su appearance before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, on cannot be termed intentional. Therefore, it is dated 11.07.2025, directing the petitioner to appear before the Court on the date fixed, i.e., 14.08.2025. Ordered accordingly. In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court at Mansa in future, whenever required, the Court will be at liberty to procee in accordance with law. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? , however, contends that the petitioner did not appear before the Court nor his involvement in any other case was brought no exception can be taken to the impugned Considering the facts aforementioned, especially that the petitioner was present along with his counsel in another case, State v. Jagtar , before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, on 11.07.2025, his Sessions Judge, Mansa, on that date deemed appropriate to set aside directing the petitioner to appear before the Court In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court at Mansa in the Court will be at liberty to proceed against him TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , however, contends that the petitioner did not appear before the Court nor his involvement in any other case was brought impugned Considering the facts aforementioned, especially that the Jagtar , his date set aside directing the petitioner to appear before the Court In case the petitioner fails to appear before the Court at Mansa in d against him Aman Dua 2025.07.29 18:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document