Court dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. Petitioner had absconded from trial court, resulting in bail forfeiture. Petitioner filed for anticipatory bail instead of surrendering, lying beyond the scope of extraordinary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.M-22684 of 2012 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.
Crl.M.No.M-22684 of 2012(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M-22684 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: August 7, 2012
Rajwinder Singh @ Raju
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.Ravi K.Mattoo, Advocate for the petitioner.
......
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Crl.M.No.43787 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-22684 of 2012
The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.51, dated 6.5.2011, under Sections 458, 323, 148, 149 IPC (Sections 459, 460, 325, 201, 120-B IPC added lateron and however Section 458 IPC was deleted at the time of preparation of challan), registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioner for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that he was facing trial in the aforementioned FIR before learned Additional Sessions
Crl.M.No.M-22684 of 2012(O&M)
-2-
Judge, Patiala. He was on bail and, however, he absented from the Court on 28.5.2012 without any intimation and hence, his bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and forfeited to the State and his presence was ordered to be secured by issuing non-bailable warrants. However, instead of surrendering before that Court and explaining reasons for his absence, he filed petition for anticipatory bail before this Court.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioneraccused.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Rajwinder Singh @ Raju for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
7.8.2012
meenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner who absconded from trial court without intimation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajwinder Singh @ Raju
State of Punjab
Ram Chand Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
