Crl. Misc. No. M-18486 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-18486 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : June 10, 2011 Surinder Mohan Duggal .... PETITIONER Vs. State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. N.L.Sammi, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner could not come present before the trial Court on 27.05.2011 on the ground that he was unwell and, therefore, he had moved an application for exemption from personal appearance. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court without considering the application for exemption, which was based on a medical certificate submitted by the petitioner. A perusal of the records and the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala indicates that the case was initially fixed for hearing on 24.05.2011, wherein an application was moved by the Crl. Misc. No. M-18486 of 2011 (O&M) 2 petitioner for exemption from personal appearance on the ground that he being not well, four days rest was prescribed by the doctor and keeping that into consideration, the Court had adjourned the case for 27.05.2011. On that date again, an application was filed for exemption from personal appearance along with an additional medical certificate. The said certificate has not been accepted by the trial Court as it doubted the bona- fides of the applicant for the reason that there was another case registered against the petitioner and to evade arrest in the said case, the petitioner had moved the application for exemption from personal appearance in the case. This act of the petitioner was found to be intentional and deliberate by the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner states that in the second FIR, which is stated to have been registered against the petitioner, the petitioner got an interim bail on 02.06.2011, which is subsequent to the date when the case was listed before the trial Court i.e. 27.05.2011. The findings, therefore, recorded by the trial Court and the apprehensions expressed therein are fully justified, which do not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) June 10, 2011 JUDGE pj