Crl.M.No.M-18525 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-18525 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 2, 2010 M/s.Maruti Tyres, National Highway, OJAS Complex No.1, Gandhi Dham, through its Proprietor Balwant Thakkar, resident of Plot No.310, Road No.3-A, Adipur, Taluka Gandhi Dham, Kutch (Gujrat). .....Petitioner v. Apollo Tyres Ltd., having its office at Apollo House, 7, Institutional area, Sector 32, Gurgaon. .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in Criminal Complaint No.367, dated 13.3.2003, under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the Court of JMIC, Gurgaon. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the present petitioner is pending since the year 2003. Though it is not clear as to when order summoning the petitioner was passed by learned trial Court, however, he had been evading appearance before learned trial Court and hence bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants and then proclamation was issued. However, in the light of technical defect, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide order dated 19.4.2010 granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner-accused and directed him to surrender before trial Court before 30.4.2010 and on his surrender, learned trial Court was directed to admit him to bail. However, he did not comply with the said order and did not surrender before learned Crl.M.No.M-18525 of 2010 (O&M) -2- trial Court before 30.4.2010, rather he moved another application before learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, for extension of period to surrender on the plea that he was not informed about the order by his counsel. Learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.5.2010, did not accept his said plea and rejected his petition for extension of period. Petitioner has misused the process of the Court. He has not even complied with the order of the Court. Hence, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Balwant Thakkar, Proprietor of M/s.Maruti Tyres for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, petitioner is directed to surrender before learned trial Court within two weeks from today and if he so surrenders before learned trial Court and applies for regular bail, his bail application be decided by learned trial Court on the same day on merit. 2.7.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge