CRM No. M-2971 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-2971 of 2009 Date of decision: 3.2.2009 Aktar Khan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S. Baath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in a case bearing FIR No.739 dated 23rd September, 2001, under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 506, 216 IPC, registered at Police Station City Palwal, District Faridabad. Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia argued that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. He has further submitted that he was earlier granted regular bail in this case. However, the same was cancelled as he could not appear before the court below due to illness. He has thus submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this case. It is evident that the petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid case on 16th February, 2004. He was thereafter granted regular bail. CRM No. M-2971 of 2009 2 However, the petitioner jumped bail and failed to appear before the trial court in all subsequent proceedings. Vide order dated 20th July, 2006, he was declared a proclaimed offender. The case was fixed before the trial court for prosecution evidence on 10.1.2009. On 11.1.2009, the petitioner moved a petition for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, Faridabad. The same was dismissed on 15.1.2009 in view of the petitioner having misused the concession of bail and having been declared a proclaimed offender. It is clear that plea of the petitioner that he fell ill, is devoid of merit. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was not able to attend the court due to illness nor there is anything to show that he moved any application in this regard before the trial court. The petitioner not only jumped bail but remained absent from the trial for a number of years. This apart, he is a proclaimed offender. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE February 03, 2009 'rajpal'