Crl. Misc. No. M-31608 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-31608 of 2009 Date of Decision : December 22, 2009 Ranjit Singh @ Titi .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Chauhan, AAG, Punjab for the respondent-State. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Ranjit Singh @ Titi has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 72 dated 23.07.2007, under Sections 307, 382, 353, 332, 186, 148, 149, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) (Sections 212, 216, 333 IPC added subsequently) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner was earlier on bail. After commitment of the case before Sessions Court, the case was fixed for 27.06.2008. On that day, the petitioner did not appear in the Sessions Court and rather sent one Ravi Sher Singh to impersonate for the petitioner in the Sessions Court. Crl. Misc. No. M-31608 of 2009 2 However, the impersonation was detected and consequently, on account of absence of the petitioner, his bail bonds were cancelled and forfeited. The petitioner remained absconding. His presence could not be secured through warrants. Proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) was issued for 25.05.2009, but still he did not appear. The case was adjourned to 04.07.2009 by the Sessions Court for declaring the petitioner as Proclaimed Offender. Thereupon, it was on 04.07.2009 that the petitioner surrendered. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. He has not only misused the concession of bail extended to him earlier, but also he interfered with administration of justice by sending somebody else to impersonate for him in the Sessions Court. Even after remaining absent from the Sessions Court, the petitioner remained absconding for more than one year. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has effected compromise with the complainant. However, this circumstance is not sufficient to admit the petitioner to bail. In fact, according to the prosecution version, public servants who had conducted auction, were attacked by the petitioner and his co-accused. Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the instant bail petition is dismissed. December 22, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE