Criminal Misc. No. M-18397 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-18397 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.7.2011 Lakhvir Singh .. Petitioner vs State of Punjab .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 99, dated 3.8.2005, registered under Sections 353, 186, 34 IPC, at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda. On 7.6.2011 this Court, while issuing notice of motion, noticed following contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that petitioner was on bail during the investigation, however, challan was presented against the petitioner on 15.9.2006. On the presentation of the challan, learned trial Court has issued notices to the petitioner, however, petitioner could not be served; consequently petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court thereafter trial Court has issued proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against petitioner vide order dated 28.2.2011. Having received knowledge about the issuance of the proclamation against the petitioner on 28.2.2011, petitioner approached the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, for anticipatory bail. Learned Additional Criminal Misc. No. M-18397 of 2011 (2) Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide order dated 14.3.2011 has granted interim bail to the petitioner with the direction that petitioner shall join the proceedings pending before the Court within 10 days and shall be released on bail on furnishing one personal bond and one surety bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each to the satisfaction of trial Court. Learned counsel has further argued that petitioner thereafter appeared before the trial Court and was enlarged on bail pursuant to the interim bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.3.2011. He further contends that thereafter petitioner went on appearing before the trial Court and zimni orders, which are reproduced in the body of the petition, reveal that petitioner had been appearing before the Court till 25.5.2011 and never missed the date, however, when bail application pending before the Additional Sessions Judge came up for final hearing it was unnecessarily dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge by wrongly observing that because of the absence of the petitioner, trial was pending for the last five years. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once petitioner had made compliance of the interim bail, there was no occasion for the Court to reject the anticipatory bail application.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the order passed, the petitioner has already appeared before the learned Court below and submitted his bail bonds. Considering the aforesaid facts, the interim order dated 7.6.2011, granted in favour of the petitioner is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. 22.7.2011 (Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge