IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 30011 of 2010 Date of decision : 12.10.2010 Satish Kumar …. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ….. Respondents Present : Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a complaint case titled Seema Devi v. Rajinder Pal etc. pending in the learned Sessions Judge at Ambala. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was summoned in a complaint case filed by Seema Devi (respondent No.2) alleging the commission of offences under Sections 323, 325, 506, 342 and 427 IPC. The petitioners were allowed bail by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Naraingarh on 8.6.2010. Thereafter, the case was sent to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala to be heard along with another case bearing FIR No.18 dated 27.2.2008 registered at Police Station Shahzadpur for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. The father of the complainant along with his co-accused, it is submitted, committed the murder of Mam Chand for which FIR No.18 dated 27.2.2008 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC was registered. The petitioner is the brother of said Mam Chand (deceased) who was murdered. For the said murder, Pala Ram and others are in Jail since 2008 for committing the murder of the brother of the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M- 30011 of 2010 [2] The present petition is for the grant of anticipatory bail which has been declined by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala vide order dated 27.9.2010 (Annexure P2). In the complaint (Annexure P1) filed by respondent No.2 Seema Devi, the charge was altered to that under Section 459 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala on the date of filing the application for bail. The complaint (Annexure P1) it is alleged has been filed as a counter-blast alleging cross-version to the FIR under Section 302/34 IPC against the father of the complainant and others. It may be noticed that the petitioner had appeared in the morning in the bail application but was not present after lunch to hear the order. A reading of the order shows that the learned Sessions Judge ordered that the other accused who were present be taken in custody because they had been charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 459 IPC in which they were not granted bail. The petitioner, it was observed, was present in the morning when the arguments on the application for bail were heard, but after that he had absented himself. According to the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioner had misused the concession of bail already granted to him. So, his bail, bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and he was summoned through non-bailable warrants. The other remaining accused were taken in custody. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be given an advantage for being absent from the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Ambala. The charges in the case were altered on that day i.e. on 27.9.2010 and the arguments on the bail application were also heard on the same date. However, while Crl. Misc. No. M- 30011 of 2010 [3] others had remained present, the petitioner went away and absented himself. In view of the afore-said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 12, 2010 amit