1 46 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5588/2009. Kalunath Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 10th November 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. A.R. Godara, for the petitioner. Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, Public Prosecutor. ... BY THE COURT: The petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 420, 120-B IPC, has moved this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after having been declined bail by the learned Sessions Judge for the reason that he remained absconding for more than 9 years. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the co-accused Ladunath was acquitted by the learned Trial Court on 22.05.2000 for the petitioner could not attend the Court on 23.03.2000; and petitioner got the information of the case having come to an end with acquittal and, therefore, could not attend later. However, it is noticed from the judgment and order dated 22.05.2000 that on the dispute relating to disposal of property involved in this case, i.e., a she-camel, the matter came to this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. that was decided on 16.12.1999 while directing the learned Trial Court to decide the matter itself within 6 months. The learned 2 Trial Court obviously took up the matter in priority pursuant to the order passed by this Court but then, the petitioner remained absent on 23.03.2000 and warrant for arrest was issued and thereafter, he was declared an absconder. The learned Trial Court was required to proceeded expeditiously per the directions of this Court and did proceed against the co-accused Ladunath; and on the evidence as available on record qua the said accused, proceeded to acquit him. However and even while passing the said order of acquittal, the learned Trial Court made the comment that the case of the present petitioner Kalunath in relation to the animal had not come before the Court and thus, while permitting the animal to remain with the complainant Gopal Ram, ordered the file to be preserved for the petitioner being an absconder. It appears that pursuant to the standing warrant, the petitioner could be arrested only on 01.10.2009. Evident it is that the petitioner avoided the process of law for over 9 years. The submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner for bail, in the given set of facts and circumstances, do not inspire confidence. The bail application stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//