Criminal Misc.-M No. 33053 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 33053 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 15.11.2011 C. Raj Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. N.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S. Teji, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. …… RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is accused in FIR No. 78 dated 29.4.2003 registered under Sections 223, 224 IPC at Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana. Allegations against the petitioner are that one accused Rakesh Kumar had run away from his custody when he was being taken into court by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is serving as Constable in Punjab Police and presently posted in the Vigi- lance Department, Ludhiana. After grant of bail, he was regularly appearing in Court. On 23.10.2009, the case was adjourned for 15.2.2010. When the petitioner went to the court to attend proceedings on 15.2.2010, he found that the concerned Magistrate had been transferred and court had been abol- ished and he could not find as to which court the case had been transferred. Fresh notice was issued to the petitioner by the concerned court but he did not receive the same. Arrest warrants issued against the petitioner were also not served as those had been sent at his residential address, otherwise his in- tention was not to be absent from the court. Criminal Misc.-M No. 33053 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the State submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner had absented from the court from 15.2.2010 onwards, he does not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. However, he could not ex- plain as to why efforts were not made to serve the petitioner at his place of posting once he was serving in Punjab Police. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that though there is a lapse on the part of the petitioner in not enquiring about the case on 15.2.2010 but there is a lapse on the part of the State as well in not providing current correct address of the petitioner for effecting his service, in my opinion, the petitioner is not required to be taken into cus- tody. He shall appear before the court below on or before November 25, 2011 and submit his fresh bail bonds. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 15.11.2011 sharmila