CRM-M No. 24449 of 2011 **** Rakesh Punia v. State of Haryana and another Present: Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Man Mohan Sikka, DAG, Haryana. Mr. B.S.Walia, Advocate for the complainant. **** This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed in a complaint case bearing No. 301-I/2005 dated 4.10.2005, under Sections 323, 365, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 25, 54,59 of the Indian Arms Act pending in the Court of JMIC, Hisar. On 12.08.2011 the following contention was noticed:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been appearing regularly during trial for the last five years but could not appear before the trial Court on last two dates as he had been transferred to Ranchi from Hisar and was not present due to wrong impression that his personal appearance has been exempted.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that after the petitioner has been summoned before the trial court and admitted to regular bail, he had been regularly appearing. However, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that though the petitioner had been regularly appearing but a perusal of the case file shows that he has been in the habit of seeking exemptions from time to time. Leaned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would definitely keep on appearing before the Court. Petition is allowed. Order dated 12.08.2011 is made absolute subject to the conditions envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE December 21, 2011 sunita