IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-24499 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.8.2011 Satpal @ Kaka ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Mr.Shailender Kashyap, Advocate for Mr.J.S.Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of orders Annexures P-1 and P-2. The petitioner along with other co-accused is facing trial in an offence under Sections 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC registered vide FIR No.231 dated 12.11.2007 at Police Station Garhshankar. They were granted bail during the course of proceedings. On 6.5.2011, learned trial Court noticed that all the accused were absent without intimation. Their bail was cancelled and the bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants were issued for 1.6.2011 and notices were also issued to the sureties. Thereafter, the petitioner in order to cover up his default moved an application for pre-arrest bail on 23.6.2011 and pleaded that his absence was due to inadvertence and that he be granted indulgence. The Court of learned Crl.Misc.No.M-24499 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur considered the prayer of the petitioner and directed him to appear on or before 30.6.2011 before the learned trial Court and move a regular bail application. This order was passed on 23.6.2011. On the said date i.e. 30.6.2011 he did not surrender before the Court as was directed vide order dated 23.6.2011. An application was moved on his behalf for extension of time to surrender before the learned trial Court which was also accepted and the petitioner was directed to surrender till 25.7.2011, on which date learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for adjournment and the matter was fixed for 26.7.2011. On the said date neither the counsel nor the petitioner appeared, as a result of which the bail application was dismissed. The petitioner then preferred an application through his counsel seeking exemption from personal appearance on medical ground. This application was, however, not accompanied by any medical certificate. The Court then noticed the previous defaults of the petitioner and declined the prayer and also issued non-bailable warrants for 1.8.2011. This petition has been preferred and has come up for hearing on 12.8.2011, which indicates that the petitioner has still not surrendered before the court below. Except for a bald prayer that it was on account of inadvertence that the petitioner could not appear, no other plausible explanation has been given. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is misconceived. The petitioner had been granted indulgence by the trial Court by accepting his bail and also Crl.Misc.No.M-24499 of 2011 (O&M) -3- granted the similar indulgence by the learned Sessions Judge despite his default, but he has not cared to surrender before the Court. It is a settled proposition of law that grant of bail even though is to be considered liberally, yet is a discretionary relief to be granted by the court by keeping in view the entirety of circumstances. But if a person abuses such a concession and that too flagrantly, then, of course, there is no option left with the court but to deal with such a person appropriately so as to bring him to book. It is obvious that the petitioner, who has not cared to appear before the Court despite the indulgence shown by this court, has scant respect for law. Consequently, the instant petition in which prayer for quashing of orders Annexures P-1 and P-2 has been made, is without any merit and is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-, which shall be recovered from the petitioner. The trial court shall take to task the surety to whom notice has already been issued without showing any leniency on the issue. The SSP, Hoshiarpur is directed to entrust the matter to a senior police officer who shall ensure that the petitioner is arrested forthwith. It is also observed that the trial court shall take into consideration the conduct of the petitioner while dealing with any future bail application on behalf of the petitioner. 12.8.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss