CRM-M-19786-2011(O&M) [ 1 ] ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19786-2011(O&M) Date of decision:21.07.2011. Feroz Khan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Kartar Singh Malik-I, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case registered vide FIR No.30 dated 26.01.2009, under Sections 392 & 397 of IPC, Police Station Sampla after he alleged to have jumped the bail and was taken in custody. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court for grant of bail in CRM-M-22872-2010 which was dismissed by a detailed order on 10.08.2010, which is reproduced as under: - “Prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is for grant of regular bail to accused- petitioner in case FIR No.30 dated 26.01.2009 under Sections 392/397 IPC registered at PS Sampla, Rohtak, after he had jumped the regular bail and taken back in custody. As per the allegations the petitioner alongwith his co-accused on 26.01.2009 at around 8 pm in Village Karore had snacthced the motorcycle and cash from the complainant – Munish Kumar. The petitioner was arrested on 11.02.2009 and he was granted regular bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.11.2009. CRM-M-19786-2011(O&M) [ 2 ] ****** Petitioner failed to appear on 12.03.2010 when the case was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence and one PW was also present for the purpose of recording of the evidence, resulting into cancellation of bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner had failed to appear on 12.03.2010 before the learned trial Court due to his sudden illness and thereafter on 02.04.2010 he had surrendered and moved a fresh bail application, which was wrongly declined by the learned trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel, I find that the learned trial Court has rightly denied the concession of bail to the petitioner on the ground that no medical certificate was produced to substantiate the basis for non-appearance on 12.03.2010, when one prosecution witness was present. It appears that the petitioner neither informed his counsel nor made any application seeking exemption for that particular date on medical grounds. It is further apparent from the order passed by the learned Trial Court that the petitioner is also involved in another criminal case under Section 457/380 IPC. For the reasons stated above, no ground for granting the concession of regular bail to petitioner is made out at this stage. Dismissed.” The petitioner has again filed the present petition for grant of regular bail without there being any change in the circumstances. In view thereof, the present petition is dismissed. July 21, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE