Criminal Misc.-M No. 29562 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 29562 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.11.2011 Gurmukh Singh Bajwa and another .. Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Ms. G. K. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. B. B. S. Teji, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a private complaint filed by respondent No. 2 under Sections 451, 323, 427, 504, 379, 506, 120-B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the only non-bailable offence in the present case is under Section 379 IPC, for which too the allegations are not against the petitioners. It is alleged in the complaint that one ring and wrist watch were taken away by Jatinderpal Singh (non-petitioner). She further submitted that prior to the filing of complaint in the court, the matter was not reported to the police. It is a dispute between the family members regarding property. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioners along with other accused had earlier filed a petition bearing Criminal Misc.-M No. 28538 of 2008 in this court praying for quashing of the complaint in question and also summoning order dated 24.1.2008, vide which all the accused were summoned to face trial. The aforesaid petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail of any other remedy in accordance with law, vide order dated 3.12.2009. However, till date the petitioners have been avoiding appearance before the court below and the trial is being delayed. Considering the conduct of Criminal Misc.-M No. 29562 of 2011 [2] the petitioners, they do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail. He further submitted that factum of filing of petition for quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order has not even been mentioned in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the allegations in the complaint against the petitioners and the fact that after having knowledge of the pendency of proceedings against them, they had not appeared before the court below, they may be granted concession of pre-arrest bail on certain conditions. The petitioners are even ready to pay the costs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that in view of the allegations contained in the complaint, which was filed way back in the year 2006, in my opinion, the petitioners deserve concession of pre-arrest bail, as they can appear before the court below and face trial. However, considering the conduct of the petitioners where even after they had the knowledge of pendency of the complaint against them and also summoning order dated 24.1.2008, as the petition filed for quashing of the complaint as well as the summoning order was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.12.2009, still the petitioners did not put in appearance before the court below on account of which the proceedings continued to be delayed, in my opinion, the petitioners need to be burdened with costs for wasting valuable time of the court. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the petitioners are permitted to put in appearance before the court below on or before 25.11.2011 and furnish their bail bonds. However, the same shall be accepted only on production of a receipt of payment of ` 1,00,000/- as costs to be deposited with Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.11.2011 mk Criminal Misc.-M No. 29562 of 2011 [3]