CRM No.-M-17193 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No.-M-17193 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.7.2009. Kunchit Mehra and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate for the petitioners. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** Prayer in the present petition is for anticipatory bail in a complaint filed against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner is before this Court, his prayer having been rejected by the learned Court below. The reason for not considering the prayer of petitioner for anticipatory bail has been set out in detail in the impugned order. Briefly the same are that the complaint against the petitioners was filed way back on June 14, 2000. After preliminary evidence, the petitioners were ordered to be summoned for March 7, 2001 vide order dated December 7, 2000. The petitioners put in appearance on August 31, 2001 and the case was adjourned to January 22, 2002 for pre-charge evidence. However subsequently on two occasion the petitioners did not put in appearance and sought exemption from personal appearance, which at the relevant time considering the reason set out by the petitioners to be bonafide, was granted. After appearance on one date of hearing again on four occasion exemption from personal appearance was sought and granted. On May 18, 2004 the application for exemption from personal appearance was dismissed and the petitioners were ordered to be summoned through non bailable warrants. It was at this stage that the petitioners moved a petition before this Court seeking setting aside of summoning order. CRM No.-M-17193 of 2009 (O&M) 2 While issuing notice of motion on April 26, 2005 further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed till the next date of hearing. The petition was dismissed in default on July 24, 2007. Application filed by the petitioner for recalling of the order was also dismissed on September 28, 2007. Thereafter every effort of the Court to serve notices on the petitioners failed and ultimately they were directed to be summoned through warrants of arrest vide order dated March 30, 2009. It was at this stage that the petitioners filed application for anticipatory bail before the learned Court below which was dismissed seeing the conduct of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were ill advised not to appear in the Court below. They were not aware of the order passed by this Court. However seeing the conduct of the petitioners, I do not find any reason to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. There is no question of the petitioners being ill advised as they are not illiterate., They are business men. From the perusal of conduct of the petitioners it is evident that they were out to delay the proceedings, in which they have been able to succeed. The complaint filed way back in 2000, in which the petitioner were summoned in 2001, is still pending at initial stage. The petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 2.7.2009 JUDGE Reema