The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail, observing that his three-year absence from trial after being admitted to bail rendered the case unfit for such relief.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M- 8397 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:-5.5.2008.
Prithvi Singh
...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr.Vinod S. Bhardwaj , Advocate for the petitioner.
RAJESH BINDAL J.
The petitioner in the present case absented from the trial on 3.5.2005 and sought pre-arrest bail only on March 11, 2008. He is an accused in FIR No. 114 under Section 379 IPC, which was registered on 23.4.1999.
Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner where he remained absented for about 3 years from the trial after having been admitted to bail,I do not find this to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
This petition is dismissed.
(RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE
May 5, 2008 ritu-II
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted given the petitioner's three-year absence from trial.
Whether the petitioner's conduct warrants dismissal of the bail petition.
Prithvi Singh
State of Haryana
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
