CRM-M- 21429 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 21429 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on July 19,2011 Gurnam Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.') in a case registered vide FIR No.113 dated 16.7.2010 under Sections 457/380 of the IPC at Police Station Model Town Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the Court below but he did not appear on 18.3.2011. Hence, the following order was passed:- “Present: APP for the State Counsel for the accused Raj Kumar Accused Gurnam Singh absent. In view of the contents mentioned in the application personal appearance of accused Raj Kumar is exempted for today only. Despite calling the case several times neither the accused Gurnam Singh nor any body appeared on his behalf. Since none appeared on behalf of accused Gurnam Singh, as such bail order of accused Gurnam Singh is cancelled and bail bonds and surety CRM-M- 21429 of 2011 (O&M) 2 bonds of accused Gurnam Singh are forfeited to the State. Now non bailable warrants against accused Gurnam Singh be issued for 30.5.2011. Notice to his surety be also issued for the date fixed” The petitioner then filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which granted him bail on 1.4.2011 and asked him to surrender before the trial Court. On 5.4.2011, the trial Court passed the following order:- “An application has been filed for surrender and bail on behalf of accused/applicant. Certified copy of order dated 01.4.2011 has also been placed on record. Notice of the same is issued to the App for the State . Original file be put up on 06.4.2011. Till the decision of the bail application arrest of the accused has been stayed.” On that date, following order was passed:- “Present: Applicant with counsel Original file has not been received from the learned Appellate Court. It be summoned for 07.4.2011” Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 7.4.2011 and 8.4.2011 and the following order was passed:- “Present:Counsel for the applicant. Today accused/applicant has not come present in the Court and in his absence the bail application cannot be decided. Original file has been received. Counsel is directed to ensure the presence of the accused tomorrow i.e.on 08.4.2011”. “Present: Counsel for applicant/accused Gurnam Singh Today, again accused/applicant has not come present in the Court inspite of the fact that on 07.4.2011, it was specifically directed that accused be produced today i.e. 08.4.2011. Peursal of the order dated 01.4.2011 passed by CRM-M- 21429 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Sh.G.S.Bakshi, Ld.Addl.Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, reveals that the arrest of the accused had been stayed till the decision of the bail application. Bail orders of the accused had been cancelled on 18.3.2011. Clearly the accused/applicant is playing hide and seek with the Court. Due to non appearance today, the bail application is dismissed. Papers be attached with the main file”. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no intention of the petitioner not to appear in the Court and his absence is attributed to mis communication. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and found that the petitioner is incorrigible because he did not appear on 18.3.2011 and when the Court granted him anticipatory bail, he did not appear on 7.4.2011 and 08.4.2011 continuously. This Court is not ready to accept the excuse made by the petitioner that there was lack of communication with his Advocate as nothing has been brought on record by his Advocate. In this view of the matter, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence the present petition is hereby dismissed. July 19,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge