CRM-M-26161 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-26161 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.09.2009 **** Chander Shekhar . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.14 dated 10.1.2001 registered under Sections 4 & 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. Briefly stated, vide order dated 29.4.2009, bail bonds of the petitioner were cancelled and he was summoned through non-bailable warrants for 28.5.2009. Notice to the surety was also issued for the date fixed. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, petitioner filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala on 18.5.2009. But the same was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala on 4.6.2009, observing that the charge was framed on 29.3.2001 and for the evidence of the prosecution, the case has been adjourned from time to time and most of the time adjournments were sought by the accused. It is also mentioned that prior to this date, petitioner was not present on 6.1.2006 though he ultimately surrendered before the Trial Court on 31.7.2006. It has also been observed that the application filed by the petitioner with regard to his exemption from personal appearance on the ground of ailment of his mother was not supported by the medical evidence. CRM-M-26161 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been facing trial for the last 7 years and in para No.13(1) it has been mentioned that petitioner is absented only once, therefore, he could not be termed to be a willful and habitual absentee. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory case because this is not the first lapse on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner had earlier also absented from the hearing of the case as on 16.6.2009. Moreover, there is no plausible explanation given in this case for his non-appearance. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) SEPTEMBER 23, 2009 JUDGE vivek