IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-30412 of 2009 Date of decision : November 23, 2009 Ajit Kumar ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Ajit Kumar has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 96 dated 7.7.2006 under sections 341, 325, 324, 307, 427, 506, 160, 148, 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station 'A' Division, District Amritsar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Perusal of order dated 7.4.2009, Annexure P/4, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar reveals that the petitioner did not appear in the trial court on 7.4.2009 without any intimation and therefore, his bail bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was un-well since February, 2009 and subsequently there were also other Criminal Misc. No. M-30412 of 2009 -2- reasons including death of petitioner's brother-in-law on 26.8.2009 (which was also the date fixed before the trial court) and therefore, the petitioner could not appear before the trial court. The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted because there is neither any such plea in the bail petition nor there is any material on record to substantiate the same except that death of brother-in-law of the petitioner on 26.8.2009 has been mentioned. However, petitioner had absented from the trial court much earlier on 7.4.2009 and for non appearance on the said date and on subsequent dates, no reason has been assigned either in the instant petition or before the Sessions Court where also petition for anticipatory bail had been moved which was dismissed vide order dated 29.9.2009, Annexure P/3. In fact, the petitioner in the instant petition did not even mention that he did not appear in the trial court on 7.4.2009. On the other hand, from the averments made in para no. 4 of the petition, an impression is given that the petitioner could not appear in the trial court on 26.8.2009, the date on which his brother-in-law died. In view of the aforesaid but without meaning to express anything on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 23, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'