Crl. Misc. No. M-33392 of 2010 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-33392 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 08.12.2010 Balbir Singh ..........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. Crl. Misc. No. 64121 of 2010 This is an application for placing on record additional affidavit of the petitioner. Application is allowed and additional affidavit of the petitioner is taken on record. Crl. Misc. No. 59296 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No. M-33392 of 2010 The present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of Balbir Singh in case FIR No. 31 dated 6.3.2004 registered under Section 406/420 IPC at Police Station Division No.6, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was on bail and was attending the Court proceedings regularly. Only on Crl. Misc. No. M-33392 of 2010 (O&M) (2) one date i.e. 6.7.2010, the petitioner although was present and next date of hearing was given as 19.8.2010 but when on 19.8.2010, he came to the Court, he came to know that non-bailable warrants have already been issued against him on 6.7.2010. On inquiry, the petitioner came to know that on 6.7.2010, there were two cases of the similar name i.e. State Vs. Balbir Singh in the list and the presence of the petitioner was marked in the other case and on account of this similarity, he was marked absent in his case. Learned counsel further contends that the petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana for grant of bail and vide order dated 25.8.2010, he was directed to move an application for bail before the trial Court within a week and the trial Court was directed to decide the application on the same date on merits. Learned counsel further contends that the absence of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate but was due to the fact that two cases of similar name were listed on 6.7.2010 and attendance of the petitioner was marked in the other case. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have also gone through the other documents available on record. It appears that the conduct of the petitioner was bonafide because of wrong marking of presence in other case. On an application for bail moved by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, directions were issued by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dated 25.8.2010 for moving an application for bail before the trial Court, which was to be decided on the same day. However, the petitioner apprehending that since non-bailable warrants have been issued against him and if he approached the trial Court by filing such an application, which was ordered to be decided on the same day on merits, he might not be arrested in the event of dismissal of that application. It is due to this apprehension that Crl. Misc. No. M-33392 of 2010 (O&M) (3) instead of filing such an application before the trial Court, the present application has been moved for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption is only on the basis of apprehension that the application would be decided against him as the view of Sessions Judge while issuing direction to the trial Court that application was to be filed by the petitioner before it and same was to be be decided on that very day, was justified as per law. But nevertheless, the petitioner has his own impression due to wrong presumption. Be that as it may, since the petitioner was appearing before the trial Court and attending the Court proceedings regularly without any lapse on his part and the mistake, as stated above, was bonafide, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the trial Court. In case, the petitioner appears before the trial Court and furnishes bail bonds and surety bonds, he shall be released on bail to its satisfaction subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, which is to be deposited before Legal Services Authority, Punjab. December 08, 2010 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No