Criminal Misc. No. M-37474 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-37474 of 2011 Date of decision : December 13, 2011 Varundeep Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : None for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Accused Varundeep Singh has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 35 dated 15.3.2010 under section 21of NDPS Act and section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Batala, District Gurdaspur. None is appearing for the petitioner in spite of pass over. I have perused the case file. Perusal of the file reveals that the accused- petitioner was earlier on bail in this case but he jumped bail and did not appear in the trial court on 7.4.2011 without any intimation. Accordingly, his bail bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner is suffering from alcoholism and addicted to drugs and therefore, he could not appear in the trial court on 7.4.2011, the date fixed there. Reference in this regard has Criminal Misc. No. M-37474 of 2011 -2- been made to certificate Annexure P/2. However, perusal thereof reveals that the petitioner was admitted in the Rehabilitation Centre for five months with effect from 16.6.2010 i.e. upto November, 2010. It does not explain absence of the petitioner from the trial court on 7.4.2011 in any manner. It may also be mentioned that two witnesses of the prosecution were present on 7.4.2011 and had to go unexamined because the petitioner-accused did not appear. Proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has also been ordered against the petitioner vide order dated 6.5.2011 and again vide order dated 14.6.2011 for 16.7.2011. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. He has misused the concession of bail granted earlier to him. He has remained absent from the trial court for more than 8 months. Orders for issuing proclamation against the petitioner – accused under section 82 Cr.P.C. have already been passed. No intimation was sent to the trial court that the petitioner is unable to appear on account of alcoholism or addiction to drugs. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 13, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'