IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-30235 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 08, 2008 Bikram Dutta .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Premjit S. Hundal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner(s) in case FIR No.98 dated 5.5.2006 lodged for commission of offence punishable under Section(s) 307, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC with Police Station, Jandiala, District Amritsar. The prayer for bail of the petitioner was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, vide Order dated 29.10.2008 while recording the following observations:- “Arguments on application for bail of accused Bikram Dutta dated 12-09-2008 heard. The perusal of the file shows that he did not appear in the Court on 03-04-2007 and application for exemption of his personal appearance was filed on the ground that he has gone to Faridabad in connection with the death of Crl. Misc. No. M-30235 of 2008 [2] his relative. The application was allowed and the accused was directed to produce the death certificate on the next date of hearing i.e. 05-04-2007. Accused did not turn up. His bail order and bail bonds were cancelled and he was summoned through warrants of arrest. His presence could not be procured in this case. He was arrested in some other case and was made to appear in this case on 21-05-2007. In between he was released on bail by the order of the Hon’ble High Court. He again absented from the proceedings on 27-05- 2008. It is very difficult to procure the presence of such like accused time and again. His warrant of arrest could not be executed. He is involved in several other cases and is absent in this case. The presence of surety was also procured after lot of efforts. The serving official of the Police Department were made to execute the order of the Court. The period of absence is un-explained. The accused as such does not deserve for any concession of bail. The application is hence dismissed.” The facts given out in the order (portion reproduced above) are not in dispute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 08, 2009 JUDGE avin