CRM No. M 27107 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M 27107 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.9.2011 Amrik Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. JORA SINGH, J. Amrik Singh-petitioner, preferred this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for issuance of directions to the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar to admit the petitioner on bail in pursuance of warrants of arrest issued against him on account of his absence from the Court on 5.4.2011 in case FIR No. 332 dated 19.11.2008, registered under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short) at Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was on regular bail and due to mistake date of hearing was noted as 15.7.2011 and on 15.7.2011 when he had contacted his counsel then he was informed that warrants of arrest have been issued against him on account of his non-appearance on 5.4.2011. Learned counsel for CRM No. M 27107 of 2011 -2- the petitioner further submitted that earlier to 5.4.2011, petitioner did not misuse the concession of bail but due to mistake, petitioner failed to appear in Court on the adjourned date i.e. 5.4.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is ready to compensate the second party. Learned State counsel argued that actually date of hearing was 13.12.2010 and in the presence of the petitioner, case was adjourned to 5.4.2011 and on that date he failed to appear in Court, then the case was adjourned to 18.7.2011. In case, the petitioner mistook the date as 15.7.2011 then in the bail application he should have mentioned that actually the case was adjourned to 18.7.2011 and he mistook the date as 15.7.2011. Admittedly, FIR No. 332 dated 19.11.2008, under Sections 406/498-A IPC, Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar, was registered against the petitioner and after the completion of investigation, challan was present in Court. Date of hearing was 13.12.2010 and on that day petitioner was present in Court and in his presence, case was adjourned to 5.4.2011 but on that day petitioner failed to appear in Court. From 5.4.2011, case was adjourned to 18.7.2011. In case, the petitioner mistook the date as 15.7.2011 and on that date he had gone to attend the Court then came to know that actually case was adjourned to 18.7.2011 then in the bail application he should have mentioned that in fact the date of hearing was 18.7.2011 but due to mistake he mistook the date as 15.7.2011. No affidavit of the clerk or counsel of the petitioner that slip was given to the petitioner that from 13.12.2010, case was adjourned to 15.7.2011 and not to 5.4.2011. When the accused is CRM No. M 27107 of 2011 -3- absent then it is very easy to state that he mistook the date and due to this reason he failed to appear in Court on the adjourned date. Matrimonial dispute amongst the husband and wife. To harass the wife and delay the proceedings, petitioner intentionally failed to appear in Court on the date of hearing. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no ground is made out to accept the instant petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court and move an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In case, application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is moved by the petitioner then the same is to be disposed of sympathetically within three days by the trial Court. For the reasons recorded above, instant petition without merits is dismissed. September 14, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE