IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application(C482) No. 601 of 2010 1. Harish Kumar S/o Shri Satbir Moolchand Sehrawat 2. Satbir Moolchand Sehrawat S/o Mool Chand Both R/o A-3D, Vishwakarma Colony, Sangamvihar, Police Station Pool Prahladpur Badarpur, New Delhi ……..…Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand, through Home Secretary, Dehradun 2. Falgun Patel S/o Shri Kantibhai Patel R/o Partan Sark, Infrastructure Ltd. 401 Satya Complex, Shiv Ranjani Charaista Opposite IOC Petrol Pump Ahamdabad. ....……Opposite Parties Shri R.S. Sodi, Advocate with Ms. Manisha Bhandari Shrivastava, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Shri M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, present for the State. Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Advocate with Shri Amit Kapri, Advocate present for the respondent no. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2 2. By means of this petition moved under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C) the petitioners have sought a direction staying the arrest of the petitioners in criminal case no. 415 of 2010 (New No. 1465 of 2010), State vs. Satbir Sehrawat and others, relating to offences punishable under section under section 420, 406, 424, 120B, 109 I.P.C., Police Station Bhagwanpur, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. 2005 Crl.L.J 755, argued that the petitioner’s arrest should be stayed and they should be allowed to move their bail application. 4. The impugned order dated 22.06.2010, passed by the trial court in criminal case no. 1465 of 2010 shows that there was serious allegation of cheating against the petitioners against whom charge sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer but the petitioners are not appearing in court. He has further observed that the petitioners are absconding and changing their addresses to avoid the execution of the processes issued by the court. In the circumstances, the trial court has directed that 3 non bailable warrants be issued against the petitioners. 5. Earlier, petitioners appear to have filed a criminal miscellaneous application (C482) no. 224 of 2010 which was dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 16.03.2010, with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned, and move their bail application, the same shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. An SLP which was filed by another accused challenging said order is admittedly dismissed by the Apex Court, as withdrawn. 6. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to pass the direction as prayed by the petitioners in the present petition as they have not surrendered before the trial court. 7. Accordingly, the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 30.06.2010 Parul 4