Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks regular bail pending trial for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 IPC. 3. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statements of complainants Manjit Singh son of Gurnam Singh and Dalbir Singh alias Balbir Singh son of Rulia Ram. It has been alleged that the petitioner Swami Kamal Baba as also his co-accused Inderdeep Kaur alias Indu Mann (non-petitioner) and Raghbir Singh (non-petitioner) had cheated the complainants of sending them abroad. The complainant Manjit Singh made a statement on 1.8.2005 (Annexure- P.6) before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr to the effect that he has compromised with Raghbir Singh and Indu Mann and he had no grudge against them. It was also stated that he had also compromised with accused Kamal Baba (petitioner). On the basis of said statement, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nawanshahr vide order dated 2.8.2005 (Annexure-P.7) acquitted the co-accused of the petitioner, namely. Raghbir Singh and lnderdeep Kaur alias Indu Mann as permission was granted to them to compound the offences. The petitioner at that time was a proclaimed offender. He, therefore, filed Criminal Misc. No.56085-M of 2006 before this Court inter alia contending that on the basis of the compromise the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nawanshahr had discharged his co- accused vide. order dated 2.8.2005. This Court on 14.9.2006 (Annexure-P.8) dismissed the said criminal miscellaneous petition by observing that the petitioner in total disregard to his obligation to appear before the trial Court in accordance with the terms and conditions of his bail bond absented himself and was declared a proclaimed offender. As such no ground was made out to exercise inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the complaint qua him. In any case, it was directed that in case the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court within fortnight i. e from 14.9.2006, his application, if any, for grant of regular bail shall be considered and decided within two days of his surrender. The application has since been dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure-P.9). 4. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is in custody since 19.9.2007 and the offence qua him has been compounded by the complainant Manjit Singh. Learned counsel has submitted that both the complainants i.e. Manjit Singh and Balbir Singh alias Dalbir Singh have effected the compromise. The application has since been dismissed vide order dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure-P.9). 4. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner is in custody since 19.9.2007 and the offence qua him has been compounded by the complainant Manjit Singh. Learned counsel has submitted that both the complainants i.e. Manjit Singh and Balbir Singh alias Dalbir Singh have effected the compromise. He has referred to the statement of Dalbir Singh alias Balbir Singh recorded on 14.5.2004 (Annexure-P.5) and that of Manjit Singh dated 1.8.2005 (AnnexureP.6). A reference is also made to the compromise dated 1.8.2005 (Annexure-P.4). In the said compromise though the petitioner is not a signatory, however, it is submitted that the complainant Manjit Singh has specifically stated that he has no grudge against the petitioner. 5. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the offence under Section 406 IPC is not compoundable where the value of the property exceeds Rs. 2,000/- in view of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and even earlier to the amendment it is submitted that the case could not be compounded where the value of the property exceeds Rs. 250/-. Therefore, it is submitted that no reliance can be placed on the compromise that has beep, placed on record. It is also submitted that the petitioner was a proclaimed offender and was declared as such on 9.6.2001. Thereafter, he has been absenting himself from the trial. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner has been observed by this Court to be the kingpin in sending persons illegally abroad. He has referred to the order dated 20.1.2004 (Annexure-P.2) passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 38622-M of 2003. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it may be noticed that two of the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Raghbir Singh and Inderdeep Kaur alias Indu Mann have been acquitted vide order dated 2.8.2005 (Annexure- P.7) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr. The offence so far has not been compounded as regards the petitioner by the Court. The question whether the offence is compoundable or not is to be considered by the trial Court. The petitioner is in custody since 19.9.2007. The case is triable by a Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The question whether the offence is compoundable or not is to be considered by the trial Court. The petitioner is in custody since 19.9.2007. The case is triable by a Judicial Magistrate of the 1st Class. The trial in the case is likely to take time. Therefore, without expressing anything on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either side, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and at least two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction, of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawanshahr shall be admitted to bail. 7. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of accordingly.