CRM-M-16646 of 2011(O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-16646 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:21.09.2011 Surjit Singh . . .Petitioner Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Arvind Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) Petitioner has prayed for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.80 dated 5.5.2009 under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 477-A, 120-B & 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, Punjab, in which non-bailable warrants were issued against him due to his non-appearance. On 30.5.2011, following order was passed by this Court: “It is, inter alia, contended that the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on 28.2.2011 as he was hospitalized and the application moved by his wife to grant the petitioner exemption for appearance was mechanically declined. Notice of motion for 8.9.2011. Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to furnish fresh bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court upon CRM-M-16646 of 2011(O&M) - 2 - which he shall be enlarged on interim bail. The petitioner shall abide by the conditions as enshrined in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.” On the adjourned date i.e. 8.9.2011, following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no communication from his client with regard to the compliance of the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by this Court. He prays for time to have instructions in this regard. On his request, adjourned to 21.9.2011. Interim order to continue.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not communicating with him, therefore, he cannot make a statement whether he had appeared before the Court below or not in terms of order dated 30.5.2011. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions received from HC Harphool Singh, has stated that the petitioner did not appear before the learned Court below in terms of order dated 30.5.2011, however, P.O. proceedings are going on against him and he is alleged to be involved in two other cases. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is hereby dismissed and order of staying the arrest dated 30.5.2011 is hereby vacated. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 JUDGE Vivek