Criminal Misc. No. M-26671 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-26671 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.9.2009 Rakesh Kumar .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Briefly, the facts are that FIR No. 340 dated 25.6.2006 was registered against the petitioner and two other co-accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120- B IPC at Police Station, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. After investigation, the police presented cancellation report. The complainant filed protest petition, which was accepted and the petitioner as well as other co-accused were directed to be summoned. The petitioner filed anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court, which was accepted vide order 16.2.2009 directing therein that the petitioner shall be deemed to be admitted to pre-arrest bail for a period of one month on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, in case he surrenders before the Trial/Duty Magistrate within one week from the passing of the order, failing which the bail application was deemed to be dismissed. It was further directed that the petitioner was to surrender his passport in the court of Area Magistrate and he was not to leave the country without permission of the court. In terms of the order, the petitioner filed regular bail application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. As he failed to surrender his passport, his bail application was dismissed. However, he was not taken into custody. Thereafter, the petitioner kept quiet and filed Criminal Misc. No. M-24077 of 2009 in this Court seeking regular bail, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.9.2009. Further, the petitioner filed anticipatory bail Criminal Misc. No. M-26671 of 2009 [2] application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 4.9.2009, which was dismissed on 12.9.2009 with the observation that the petitioner had failed to comply with the conditions imposed in order dated 16.2.2009 granting him the benefit of anticipatory bail. It is at this stage that the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not avail of the benefit of the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on 16.2.2009, as he was not having the passport with him at the relevant time because the same had been given to a travel agent for getting visa for a visit abroad. Now he has received the passport and he wishes to submit the same before the court below and comply with the conditions imposed in order dated 16.2.2009. As in the present case, the police had filed the cancellation report and the petitioner has been summoned only in the protest petition, he would appear before the court below and face trial and his custody is not required. Mr. K. S. Dhaliwal, learned counsel for the complainant, who was present in Court, submitted that after the dismissal of bail application filed by the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25.2.2009, the petitioner filed regular bail application before the learned Sessions Court on 7.3.2009, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.3.2009. He further submitted that on account of non-appearance of the petitioner on 20.3.2009 before the learned Magistrate, non- bailable warrants were issued against him and in the process of service thereof, it was reported, as stated by his wife, that the petitioner had gone to USA. Considering these facts, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. From the facts, as noticed above, it is clear that non-surrender of passport by the petitioner on 25.2.2009, in terms of the directions given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while granting the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 16.2.2009, was a deliberate attempt as the petitioner intended to go abroad and in terms of the order, he could not leave the country without permission of the court. Not only this, even after the dismissal of regular bail application filed by the petitioner on 25.2.2009, and as intimated by counsel for the complainant withdrawal of regular bail application filed before the learned Sessions Court on 17.3.2009, the petitioner kept quiet till such time regular bail application was filed before this Court in September, 2009 and that too he being not in custody in the case and the prayer in the present petition is for anticipatory bail. Criminal Misc. No. M-26671 of 2009 [3] Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 24.9.2009 mk