IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M No. 23245 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 4, 2009 Mohd. Sajid Ali @ Shajada …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. Mohd. Salim, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 70, dated 15.3.2002, under Sections 363/366 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. No. M-23989 of 2005 for quashing of the said FIR, which was disposed of on 19.1.2007 and the following order was passed: “Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the fact that there is prima facie some evidence to show CRM-M No. 23245 of 2009 that the petitioner had entered into the marriage with respondent No. 3, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner surrenders himself before the Trial Court on 12/2/2007 and moves a bail application, he shall not be arrested till the disposal of the same. The bail application shall be disposed of in accordance with law by the Trial Court.” Thereafter, the petitioner filed another miscellaneous application, namely, Crl. Misc. No. 14946 of 2007 in Crl. Misc. No. M-23989 of 2005, which was rejected vide order dated 9.3.2007. While passing order dated 9.3.2007 it was observed that the petitioner did not surrender and had moved the aforementioned application after almost a lapse of one month for extension of time enabling him to surrender before the trial Court. The Court after going through his application and hearing the counsel for the petitioner rejected the application holding that once concession was granted to the petitioner with a specific direction to submit himself before the trial Court, the violation thereof clearly disentitled him to any further concession. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, was directed to arrest the petitioner forthwith and to produce him before the trial Court. Order dated 9.3.2007, reads thus: “ On 19.1.2007 when this case was taken up it was projected before this Court that the petitioner was willing to surrender himself before the jurisdiction of the trial court and participate in the trial. Persuaded by the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the 2 CRM-M No. 23245 of 2009 petitioner, this Court had directed that if the petitioner surrendered before the trial court on 12.2.2007 and in that eventuality if he moved an application before the trial court for bail, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. The petitioner did not surrender and has now moved an application after a lapse of almost a month for extension of time so as to enable him to surrender before the trial Court. After going through the contents of the application and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I am of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to be rejected outright. Once concession has been granted to the petitioner with a specific direction to submit himself before the trial court, the violation thereof clearly disentitles him to any further concession. The application is dismissed. SHO, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar is directed to arrest the petitioner forthwith and produce him before the trial Court.” At the hearing, learned State counsel has also apprised to the Court that the petitioner was also declared as Proclaimed Offender by the trial Court vide order dated 19.10.2005. Without disclosing the order dated 9.3.2007 and the factum of declaring Proclaimed Offender by the trial Court, the petitioner has filed the instant petition 3 CRM-M No. 23245 of 2009 for grant of pre-arrest bail by pleading various grounds. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case FIR No. 70, dated 15.3.2002, I am of the considered view that concession of pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in such a case where the petitioner has defied the orders of the Court passed on 9.1.2007. Despite the fact that the petitioner was declared as Proclaimed Offender on 19.10.2005, this Court has granted concession vide order dated 19.1.2007, which has been misused. The efforts of the petitioner to seek extension has also failed when his application was also dismissed on 9.3.2007. Even otherwise, the Proclaimed Offender in such circumstances cannot be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. There is, thus, no ground. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) September 4, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 4