CRM-M-26938-2011 [ 1 ] :::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-26938-2011 Date of Decision:05.10.2011 Kiran Seth ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Pawan Kumar, Quality Control Inspector, Office of Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bhiwani. **** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed by this Court: “Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that vide order dated 05.10.2007, the petitioner was substituted in place of respondent No.3 in the complaint and was ordered to be served on filing process fee, copy etc. It is submitted that there is a note on the judicial file that “PF not filed”. Thereafter, the Court recorded an order that the petitioner has not been served. The Court recorded its satisfaction that presence of the petitioner could not be secured through ordinary process, therefore, bailable warrants were issued. It was reported to the Court that the area where service is to be effected is very wide, therefore, bailable warrants CRM-M-26938-2011 [ 2 ] :::::: could not be served but in spite of that the Court recorded the order that since the petitioner could not be served through bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants be issued against him. Again a report is made that the non-bailable warrants could not be served because the serving officer could not trace out the company in which the petitioner is working. Thereafter, the proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. were carried out by the Court. When the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail, the learned Trial Court had dismissed it on the ground that he has been declared proclaimed offender. Notice of motion for 05.10.2011. In the meantime, arrest of the petitioner is stayed.” Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondents have put in appearance. Learned counsel for the respondents could not find fault with the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and recorded by this Court on 06.09.2011. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court where he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail bonds to its satisfaction with the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition is disposed of. October 05, 2011 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) RR/vinod* Judge