IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.66349 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M- 28120 of 2009 Date of decision: 06.01.2010 Hirdey …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Present: Mr Kamal Mor, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Chahal, Advocate. Mr. Pawan Singh, AAG, Haryana. S.S.SARON, J. This misc application has been filed seeking recalling of the order dated 23.12.2009 whereby the petition of the petitioner seeking pre- arrest bail has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that he apologizes for his non-appearance and that it was not intentional. It is submitted that he had asked another counsel to look after the case. However, the said counsel was standing outside the Court Room and the display board showed the case at Serial No.206 and the case was to be taken up after completion of all the cases of this Bench. However, without there being any change in the display, the transferred case of the applicant was taken up and dismissed in default. It may be noticed that on 23.12.2009 i.e. the last date of hearing, it is recorded that even on second call, no one had appeared. Crl. Misc. No.66349 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M- 28120 of 2009 2 Besides, it is also recorded that on the last date i.e. on 08.12.2009, no body was present on behalf of the petitioner. It is further recorded that the present case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 04.11.2009. Thereafter, it was restored vide order dated 09.11.2009. Therefore, the contentions made in the application are not tenable and in any case, there is no explanation for non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner on 08.12.2009. However, since the learned counsel has apologized for his non- appearance, the order dated 23.12.2009 is recalled and the case is restored to its original number. This application stands disposed of. Crl. Misc. No.M-28120 of 2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 379 and 356 IPC at PS Manesar, District Gurgaon. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Vijay Kumar who has stated that he was working as a Manager in M/s Sharda Motor Industries Ltd., Binola Company. At about 6.00 pm on 08.07.2009, he left for his house from the Company after office hours. At about 6.20 pm, he reached near Ajay Hotel. At that time, his mobile phone suddenly rang. He parked his motorcycle in order to hear the phone. Then all of a sudden, three boys came and snatched his mobile phone and rode away on a bike standing on the Delhi-Jaipur road towards Panchgaon. The mobile phone number of make Sony Ericsson as also EMI number have been mentioned in the petition. Crl. Misc. No.66349 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M- 28120 of 2009 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is 19 years of age and not a previous convict. Besides, the name of the petitioner does not figure in the FIR. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the other two boys who were also along with the petitioner have specifically named the petitioner. A reference has been made to the disclosure statement of Joginder son of Om Parkash and Krishan son of Baljit residents of village Bhudka, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. Besides, it is submitted that even despite grant of interim bail earlier, the petitioner has not joined the investigation. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner though not named in the FIR, is alleged to have stolen the motorcycle of the complainant-Vijay Kumar as also his mobile phone. The complainant had parked his motorcycle on the highway in order to attend the mobile phone that was ringing. The petitioner along with his two co-accused had stolen the motorcycle and the mobile phone. The other co-accused have been arrested and since granted regular bail. Keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner and the facts that he has been named as an accused in the disclosure statement, no ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 06.01.2010 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR/A.Kaundal Judge