Crl. Misc. No. M-31444 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-31444 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 11, 2011 Hitesh Verma .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 60638 of 2011 : Application is allowed and Annexure P-7 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Accused Hitesh Verma has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 107 dated 22.09.2009, under Sections 498-A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Nangal, District Rup Nagar. Crl. Misc. No. M-31444 of 2011 (O&M) 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The accused-petitioner, who was on bail, did not appear in the trial court on 05.08.2011, and therefore, his bail bonds were forfeited to State and he was ordered to be summoned through non-bailable warrant. Perusal of the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by learned trial Magistrate reveals that the petitioner-accused has been absenting from the Court time and again and has been seeking exemption from personal appearance on one ground or the other. A bare perusal of the details given in the order dated 05.08.2011 (Annexure P-7) reveals that the petitioner is a habitual absentee from the Court and is intentionally delaying the trial of the case. On some dates of hearing, when the petitioner-accused appeared, even then adjournment was sought on the ground that his counsel was not available, although two prosecution witnesses have been coming present on many dates of hearing. Keeping in view the conduct of the accused-petitioner, as mentioned in order dated 05.08.2011, he does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. November 11, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE