IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-1031 of 2010 Date of Decision: February 11, 2010 Daljit Singh Randhawa .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Chadha Housing & Capital Services Private Limited, Ghee Mandi, Amritsar .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. L.M. Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anandeshwar Gautam, Advocate, for the respondent. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in complaint case No.275 of 11.8.2006 titled `Shri Manvesh Jolly vs. Shri Amit Kumar’ under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. Learned counsel for the respondent- complainant has informed the Court that the petitioner has been evading the due process of Crl. Misc. No. M-1031 of 2010 [2] law since 1.12.2008. The said person has not been putting in appearing before the Trial Magistrate. In context of Order dated 14.1.2010 which notices the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is ready and willing to give the cheque amount, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client, Daljit Singh Randhawa (petitioner) is not responding to his repeated calls. I have considered the issue of grant of bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was required to put in appearance before the Trial Magistrate. The petitioner, however, did not put in appearance as required by process of law. Apprehending the arrest, petitioner filed an application for bail in the Court of Sessions in Amritsar. The Court has considered trial Court record which indicates that petitioner did not put in appearance as required without intimation on 1.12.2008. Warrants of arrest were issued which were served. The petitioner still did not put in appearance. Proclamation proceedings were initiated and finally on 16.11.2009, the petitioner was declared a Proclaimed Offender. Considering the conduct of the petitioner which shows total disregard to law, I Crl. Misc. No. M-1031 of 2010 [3] am of the considered opinion that he is not entitled to the concession as prayed for in the petition. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 11, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?