Crl. Misc. No.25968 of 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Order: August 29, 2011. Crl. Misc. No.25968 of 2011. Amarjit Kaur .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). This is second application for the grant of pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner who is a lady. On account of petitioner having not appeared before the trial Court on 15.07.2011, due to her illness, non-bailable warrants were issued cancelling her bail bonds. An application for exemption from her personal appearance filed on 15.07.2011, was dismissed by the trial Court. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner had filed an application for the grant of pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Court. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, had directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court within a period of 10 days with a further direction that application will be decided on the . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.25968 of 2011. same day without granting any protection to the petitioner. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved that no relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C., had been granted to her and there was apprehension that the moment she appears before the Court and files an application for regular bail and in the event of dismissal of the application, she would be sent to judicial custody, she approached this Court for safeguarding her right of liberty by filing a Crl. Misc. No.M-23973 of 2011 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The said petition was disposed of with following order: - “This petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner will surrender before the trial Court within a period of 10 days and explain the reasons for non-appearance on 15.07.2011. It is ordered that the application will be decided on the same day. However, in case the trial Court opts to dismiss the application for the grant of bail again, the petitioner will not be arrested for a period of next 10 days in order to enable the petitioner to approach this Court for availing the legal remedy available to her.” Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner had surrendered before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Malerkotla on 18.08.2011. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the bail application of the petitioner observing that the petitioner has not produced any medical certificate regarding her illness on 15.07.2011 and that she had not appeared in the Court on 15.07.2011 . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.25968 of 2011. deliberately. The trial Court has expressed its resentment by observing that on 15.07.2011, one PW Head Constable Joginder Singh was present, as such, he had to be discharged on account of non-appearance of the petitioner and as such, the application for bail was dismissed. Since a direction had been issued by this Court that the petitioner will not be arrested, the trial Court had issued a direction that the petitioner would not be arrested for 10 days. Faced with above circumstances, the petitioner has again filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial Court, instead of making an endeavour to take up the trial for expeditious disposal or taking into consideration the ends of justice, has adhered to ego of not granting the concession of bail, only because, the petitioner has not been able to prove by any medical evidence that she was having fever on 15.07.2011. The correct approach of the trial court in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, was to exempt the personal appearance of the petitioner on 15.07.2011 by allowing her application in the light of provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. The statement of Head Constable Joginder Singh could have been recorded by exempting the personal appearance of the petitioner, but in presence of her counsel who had moved the application for exemption. The provisions of said Section enable the trial Court to exempt the personal attendance of an accused but to take up the evidence in presence of the pleader of the accused. It is not hard . . . 3 Crl. Misc. No.25968 of 2011. and fast rule that in every case of “fever” medical certificate is required to be produced. The trial Court should have adopted humanitarian approach taking into consideration the other circumstances including the stage of case especially when the petitioner is a lady, before declining the application for exemption from personal appearance. As the trial Court, ignoring the interests of justice and expeditious disposal of the trial has struck to its ego and delayed the proceedings, this petition deserves to be allowed. The petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner will put in appearance before the trial Court on next date of hearing. The trial Court will grant bail to the petitioner on petitioner furnishing bail bond in the sum of ` 20,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the said Court with a condition that the petitioner will not absent herself without any sufficient cause and will continue to appear before the Court. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 29, 2011. rka . . . 4