Crl.M.No.M-30497 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-30497 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 5, 2011 Sandeep Chatani .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Deep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.54437 of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-30497 of 2011 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.65, dated 27.2.2008, registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Briefly stated, petitioner-accused was admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 4.1.2010 passed in Crl.M.No.M-2431 of 2010. Petitioner-accused is facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. However, perusal of impugned order shows that he is a habitual defaulter and did not appear in the Court when the case Crl.M.No.M-30497 of 2011(O&M) -2- was fixed for evidence of prosecution. He absented himself on 14.11.2009, 21.11.2009, 12.6.2010, 8.10.2010, 12.7.2010, 8.10.2010 and 25.3.2011. On every date he used to move an application for exemption on one ground or the other. However, learned trial Court used to allow his applications with the result that trial could not proceed. He again absented on 18.5.2011 and did not file any application. His bail bond was cancelled. He filed an application for exemption on 9.7.2011 on the ground that he was suffering from illness. The application was declined by learned trial Court and his bail order was cancelled and personal bonds and surety bonds were forfeited and his presence was also ordered to be secured by non-bailable warrants, vide order dated 9.7.2011. Instead of appearing before learned trial Court, he filed the present application for anticipatory bail. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. In view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Sandeep Chatani for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge