IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-9246 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 28, 2011 Mohmad Ibrahim and another …Petitioners Versus Raj Kumar. … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Sarbjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No. 9/01.02.2008 titled as Raj Kumar vs. Mohd. Ibrahim and others, for offences punishable under Section 3(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station E. Division Kotwali, Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioners has handed over a copy of the order dated 06.11.2009, which is taken on record. CRM M-9246 of 2011 Order dated 06.11.2009 reveals that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, had allowed the bail application of the applicants directing to put appearance in the Trial Court on the date fixed, in which event the Trial Court shall admit the applicants on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to its satisfaction. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated that despite of bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 06.11.2009, petitioners could not appear before the Trial Court that is why necessity arises for the present petition. Extraordinary discretionary relief to grant anticipatory bail can be exercised in favour of the accused who has complete faith in the judicial system of this country and who is coming to the Court with clean hands. Accused, who does not respect the orders passed by this Court, is not entitled for any discretionary relief for anticipatory bail. As observed herein above, present petitioners – accused were granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 06.11.2009, however, petitioners did not appear on any date before the Trial Court, therefore, they are not entitled for any concession. Petition is misconceived and is dismissed. 2 CRM M-9246 of 2011 March 28, 2011 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3